Jump to:

Philip Morris

Statement of Ronald E. Cape, Ph.D President, Cetus Corporation, Berkeley, California Before A Special Joint Congressional Hearing in Conjunction with Oversight Hearings on Science and Technology Policy the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Presiding, Senator Adlai Stevenson, III Washington, Dc

Date: 14 Feb 1978
Length: 2 pages
1000229806-1000229807
Jump To Images
snapshot_pm 1000229806-1000229807

Fields

Author
Cape, R.E.
Type
SPCH, SPEECH/PRESENTATION
Area
WAKEHAM,HELMUT/KAROL SHARPE'S OFFICE
Litigation
Stmn/Produced
Site
R37
Master ID
1000229536/9811
Related Documents:
Named Organization
Cetus
Science & Transportation Comm
Senate Subcomm on Science, Technolo
Request
Stmn/R1-004
Stmn/R1-150
Named Person
Hannay
Stevenson, A. III
Date Loaded
05 Jun 1998
UCSF Legacy ID
ggo74e00

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: ggo74e00 Log in for more options!
atement of Ronald E 'Cape PhD .,.. President, Cetus Corporation, Berkeley, California , Before a Special Joint Congressional Hearing In Conjunction with Oversight Hearings on Science and Technology Policy` 4~•eR_ ,,e,.,,,-4,r,The Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space -~ - ~~t ,, of the Commerce, . Science and Transportation Committee -"W~ ~`-Presiding, Serator Adlai Stevenson III ., i '~ _Washington, D.C. a~ . ~ ' .Y.:.... ./ . . -'K:~. t ' . .. . .. ~ . February 14, 1978 "i ti; J I z: _, ` ~ am president of a small new company in a highlyinnovative field 7R . molecular biology - exemplified most recently by recombinant DNA activity - whicYi~ has received so much publicity lately. FZ~''~~'~~}=~+i i?rr I would offer two observations. ~^' ".:a , 3 ~6`,r":L tw First:.--As Dr fHannay pointed out, there is substantial hesitation on ., ~t the part of U.S. industry to become involved in innovative fields, and it's true~inCrecombinant DNA, too. I speak from several years'of exper- ience in trying'to~sell it. By and large the response has been,-"if the activity won't pay back the investment in two or three years, sorry, ,; we're not in'terested.".Mr.-'Chairman, whatever the complex causes, this-: attitude is a"'siibstantial departure from the imagination and guts that the public debate regarding Second: Many of us ha've participated in ..~ . regulation of recombinan't-.DNA activities held by the two subcommittees with'us here . ... . . . . -_~:. -. :~... ..~ •r~ ... , .. . . .:....~.. .. _. ..:~... . I want to say that my company very much wants f all work in• this field, including, of course, work in industry. But the point I want to make here, this morning, is that, almost without exception, those people who have been most vocal in opposing recombinant k ho want it severel restricted - those eo le are almost ' DNA wor , or w y p p unanimously and outspokenly hostile to the private sector, hostile to•: " and suspicious of industry. Some go so far as to suggest that the'best • way to develop this technology is to keep it out of the hands of industry:
Page 2: ggo74e00 Log in for more options!
S SJ 1 4 1 J i; J,v . . . . .,~..:~p~. .. . r d _~.~__ .. - . .. .... ... . . . .- .. - -wi: ,R a?j„v+scqp..-, y E ~ aF l] 1 R

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: