to inform the public, so the public may act on the basis of good information and not just on its raw and perhaps uninformed (or worse, misinformed) feelings. Now, back to the idea of the Early Alert Task Force. What should its functions be? How should it be composed? It seems to me that it should be as small, mobile and tight as possible. Its members, though not necessarily full-time, should make a long-term commitment, because their function would be to keep a continuing radar-scan on science all the way from the time that it is pure, basic science, where it is what falls into the category of free inquiry, of cultural pursuit, etc.. but to be watchful for the moment when-let's say E=mc2 reaches what we might call the "Hahn-Strassmann threshold." ready to pass into the atomic-energy phase; or when DNA research suddenly provides the knowledge to make recombinant molecules. This Early Alert Task Force should keep an eye out for all signs, as early as possible, of benefits that should be pursued on behalf of the public (which might not otherwise be pursued, or might be overlooked, or simply not of great interest to any given scientist), as well as potential hazards and risks. The task force should have working for it a small, permanent, highquality, full-time staff, which, as I suggested, might be housed at NIH. The task force could add to its membership for short terms any experts it needed for advice on a given problem. They would have access to members of the President's advisory committees, to congressional staffs, as well as to members of the Senate and Congress, such as Senators Kennedy and Javits who called this conference. They would also have the freedom to poke around almost any agency, not in the role of muckrakers or investigative reporters, but simply to discover what goes on in those agencies, what their function is, who's doing what. They should have a lot of freedom as well to call on whatever help they need for their purposes purposes at any time. It would seem advisable that the task force members should have no authority whatsoever; persuasion, influence, yes-but no power to execute what they recommend. This would leave them free to observe, report, be as creative as they want in trying to forecast the consequences or further progress of whatever research they are observing. They would submit reports periodically to interested agencies or members of Congress. they could suggest to various existing agencies how these agencies might help carry out this function themselves: in fact, not be averse to putting themselves out of business if these agencies did the job superbly well. The task force would be responsible to the public. It would disseminate its information, its hopes, qualms and fears to the appropriate committees inside and outside the government, and perhaps periodically issue reports to the press, or hold press conferences, or see that the media are informed; in a word, do whatever is necessary to inform the public. As this task force keeps its radar-scan on science, it ought to be able, at any point, to pull in members or representatives of those segments of the public which it believes might be affected by what's going on. I think it would be unwieldly and inadvisable to try to have all of the publics represented on the permanent floating task force, though certainly the public should somehow be represented. But any time given groups of the public may appear to be either potential beneficiaries or victims of what is going on, those groups should be called in as far in advance as possible. (For instance, any advances having to do with sickle-cell anemia should have input from the black community long before anyone makes any decisions about screening, testing, and the like.) Wherever possible, the task force should also have a mechanism for encouraging input to itself for suggesting to the various sciences and scientific agencies research that should perhaps be done that is not being done or at least, to call it to their attention so that it can be seriously considered. When we talk about informing the public and seeing that the public has a chance to have its input in all decision-making that concerns it, I think we should be careful about trying to over-protect, in this sense: Hans Jonas, for instance, suggested a point at which experimentation in cloning should come to a halt. Whether it's cloning, or any other line of investigation, just as we insist that scientists should not decide to take risks on the public's behalf without the public's knowledge and approval, so should ethicists not put themselves in the position of protecting the public from something that maybe the public may not want to be protected from. In other words, the public ought to have input as to whether or not it believes a given line of research has benefits for which it is willing to take risks before anybody decides to put a ban on a given line of research. Either we trust the public all the way, or we don't. And I think what I said should hold whether we trust the public or not. Actually, this early alert system should not be too difficult to carry out. In a very rough-and-ready way, I (and I'm sure it's true of many journalists) have done this in my journalistic practice, consciously trying to keep track of what seems important in science, and trying to forecast its implications and alert the public as early as possible, in my limited way, with my limited knowledge and resources. We certainly have a model for this kind of activity at The National Foundation-March of Dimes, where we try to keep an eye on basic biomedical research for the possibilities it offers to prevent or ameliorate birth defects; in that way, we can encourage the acceleration of research where it looks hopeful toward a given goal, and at the same time warn our bioethics advisors as early as possible about boobytraps we spot, in order to get them thinking as far in advance as possible about what the bioethical hazards might entail. To sum up, I believe such an early-alert task force could serve both science and the public, and could specifically help members of Congress decide what guidelines or legislative actions need to be taken in order to see that the public interest is served, and that the public has a voice in what happens. о Printed for the use of the House Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee on Human Resources 84-625 O U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1977 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey EDWARD BEARD, Rhode Island MICHAEL O. MYERS, Pennsylvania AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania TED WEISS, New York CEC HEFTEL, Hawaii BALTASAR CORRADA, Puerto Rico DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey, Chairman JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia JACOB K. JAVITS, New York RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island (ex officio) HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey JACOB K. JAVITS, New York (ex officio) JEAN S. FROHLICHER, Counsel (II) Section 506-Land-grant status for the College of the Virgin Islands and the University of Guam 525 Title VIII-General provisions relating to the assignment or transportation of students.. 49 Title IX-Prohibition of sex discrimination.. 51 Education Amendments of 1974: Title II-Equal educational opportunities and the transportation of students... 56 Title VII-Reading improvement. 551 Title VIII-Miscellaneous provisions. 199 Part A Policy statements and White House Conference on 199 Part B-Educational studies and surveys____ 201 Education Amendments of 1976: Section 204-Effective dates and repealers___ 642 Title III-Extensions and revisions of other education programs. Section 521-Reports on high school equivalency program 194 Section 522-Report on reorganization of education division_. Title I-Financial assistance to local educational agencies for education of children from low-income families___. 65 Title II-School library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials. 93 Title III-Supplementary educational centers and services; guidance, counseling, and testing.... 98 Title IV-Libraries, learning resources, educational innovation, and support.... 111 |