9
like to confirm the fact that Bob Duncan is a remarkable man
when it comes to physical capabilities. I have had the opportunity
to participate with him and I think we are very fortunate.
I am very pleased that you made the statement you did today.
Let's not lose sight of what it is we are trying to do. All too often,
wouldn't you say Mr. Duncan, we get tangled up in our own
harness in government and we sometimes prevent good things
when in our endeavors to somehow insure that everything will be
perfect-maybe we ought to learn how to accept the world as it is.
Would you comment on that?
Mr. DUNCAN. I certainly could not agree more. There are trade-
offs for anything you want to do. As I said in my statement, there
is no free lunch. What we must do is equate the values with the
disadvantages and make a decision.
In fairness to the FDA, I don't think it is all their fault. A lot of
this problem we have contributed to in the Congress by freezing so
many of our laws with absolutes because of good objectives. I think
this is true with the NEPA law, clean air and water. I think we
have set almost unattainable standards of perfection that are in
effect hampering the country's effort to get ahead and survive this
difficult period.
Mr. LLOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hopkins?
Mr. HOPKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
for my tardiness this morning.
Last night on "60 Minutes" it was noted by an executive from a
major drug company that dimethyl sulfoxide, DMSO, would not be
a profitable item to market since it is a common chemical solvent,
easily and inexpensively produced at about $4 a quart.
Do you share that view, Congressman?
Mr. DUNCAN. I have no evidence that that is so. Perhaps some of
the other witnesses would comment on it. I would hesitate to state
it in those terms. It might be phrased accurately in these positions
as follows:
The patent is joined in by the University of Oregon Medical
Schools. I think Dr. Jacob has put any potential earnings he might
have in a foundation. I don't really, and would certainly hesitate to
say, and don't really believe there is active opposition from people
because of the relative ease of obtaining it and its inexpensiveness.
But I would say that if it were an expensive drug and in a
capitalistic society if there were an opportunity to make big profits,
that there might be substantially greater pressures to get it ap-
proved. But I would rather put it in that negative fashion rather
than the positive one that you did. I don't know that there is any
evidence that there is a malicious conspiracy to keep it off the
market.
Mr. HOPKINS. To what extent, Bob, in your opinion, does the lack
of interest in developing new therapeutic drugs perhaps by the
industry hamper their potential use?
Mr. DUNCAN. I am not sure I would say it is a lack of interest. I
think we have so circumscribed this whole process of examining
and proving or trying to prove the almost impossible that we have,
in effect, discouraged the drug companies from making applications
for new drugs.
