COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00006 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
∂CSM Professor Jim Adams↓School of Engineering$$debate∞

Dear Jim:

	Enclosed are my unpublished letter to the %2Daily%1 and
a %2Stanford Observer%1 story about Bernstein's views.  Its content
is similar to the %2Daily%1 article to which I refer, although
it has more facts and a somewhat more reasonable tone.

	I understand that both a debate and a panel format have
been suggested.  I somewhat prefer a debate, because the point
on which I want to challenge Bernstein is his implied suggestion
that research on artificial hearts and their installation be
slowed.  I suppose that we can stipulate the technological facts,
namely:

	1. Tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands
of people can have their lives prolonged some years by artificial
hearts.

	2. The cost per person will be tens of thousands of dollars
and perhaps even hundreds of thousands.

	3. The possible quality of life will be better than that
of a paraplegic immediately.  It will be about like that of someone
on kidney dialysis when a backpack version is put in use.

	Here are some possible debate titles.  Resolved:

	1. The Utah implantation was premature.

	2. The further implantation of artificial hearts should be delayed
until issues of social desirability have been settled.

	3. The Utah artificial heart is already a great "technological
and moral victory".  Its possibilities should be exploited as
rapidly as feasible.

	I am agreeable to either a positive or negative formulation
of the issue according to Bernstein's preference though I prefer a
positive formulation as in 3 above.

	I sent Bernstein a copy of my letter to the %2Daily%1 and
received a reply to the effect that I shouldn't make innuendoes
without having read his work but that we would still probably
disagree.  I can see some justice in his complaint about the %2Daily%1
letter and would not be inclined to speculate about what he would
do as FDA Commissioner in the debate - especially since I could
just ask him.

	I may take the occasion to argue that technology assessment
has often done more harm than good.  It substitutes speculation where
experiment is appropriate, and the speculators tend to have a negative bias.

	I haven't sent a copy to Bernstein, because I am expecting
you to introduce the matter.

.sgn