Who decides who decides?

what counts as wise? Second, does the public, after considerable thought, think that our society has a moral obligation to pursue lines of research which may benefit present and future generations? I say “moral obligation” because it is sometimes implied by advocates of recombinant D N A research that science would be guilty of a sin of omission if it did not continue and promote research so promising in theoretical and practical benefits. I would prefer to say that the research is desirable and valuable, but by no means is it! morally obligatory. It is just one choice among many we can make in allocating our scientific resources. But I would like to know what the public-after due consideration-thinks about all that. Third, what does the public think about risks and benefits? How, in some rational way, ought the public to think about that problem? One obvious implication of this line of thinking is that the public has as much obligation to act responsibly as does the scientific community. The calls for socially responsible scientists could well be matched with some concern about a socially responsible public. The future of the recombinant D N A debate will depend on the quality of the dialogue between the scientific community and the public. Neither side can conduct the debate on its own. The public must be kept informed in the future, must have a central role in present policy formation, and must develop standards by which to judge the issues. Scientists must bring their knowledge, and just as important, their lack of knowledge out into the open, not just once but again and again. The public and the scientific community have now begun to talk. This marriage can be saved.