324 



But these are not matters of legislation, those are matters for scientists in the 

 manufacturing plants and scientists elsewhere in the country and universities 

 and their own laboratories doing their normal job of research.^ 



Technical questions probed hy House Commerce GoTnmiittee 



A deeper inquiry into the technical aspects of the Salk vaccine was 

 undertaken by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- 

 merce, under the subcommittee chairmanship of Representative J. 

 Percy Priest, which had jurisdiction over PHS. The committee had 

 earlier held hearings on polio research and had received considerable 

 information on the pros and cons of attenuated versus killed vaccine.^^ 

 The inq[uiry was renewed in 1955 in connection with a bill introduced 

 by Chairman Priest, H.R. 6207, to raise the question of investigating 

 PHS procedures with respect to licensing a vaccine, specifically : 



♦ * * For the purpose of raising the question whether permanent legislation 

 is needed granting powers to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

 through an amendment of the biologies control law to control, through regula- 

 tions, in the interest of public health, the distribution and use of biological 

 products.^ 



At the outset of the hearings, the chairman issued a list of questions 

 which he wanted witnesses to consider : 



A. EESPONSIBrLITIES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT tJNDEE PRESENT LAW 



1. Under present law, what are the responsibilities of the Federal Government 

 with respect to new drugs as to (a) production and safety ; (&) distribution; and 

 (c) application and use? 



2. Under present law, what are the responsibilities of the Federal Government 

 with respect to new biological products, as to (c) production and safety; (6) 

 distribution; and (c) application and use? 



3. Under present law, what are the responsibilities of the Federal Government 

 with respect to certain new drugs, including insulin, and several specifically 

 enumerated antibiotics, as to (o) production and safety; (6) distribution; and 

 (c) application and use? 



4. What accounts for the difference in responsibilities? 



5. Is this difference in responsibilities justified? 



B. RAPID MASS APPLICATION VERSUS GRADUAL INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION 



6. Are there any public iwlicy considerations which distingiiish rapid mass 

 application of new drugs from gradual individual application with regard to 

 (c) production and safety; (6) distribution; and (c) application and use? 



7. Do these considerations differ according to whether such drugs are primarily 

 preventive or curative? 



C. RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 



8. What are the respective responsibilities (legal and other) in connection with 

 rapid mass applications of new drugs (a) preventive, or (&) curative of — 



A. Governmental agencies (Federal, State, and local) ? 



B. Voluntary agencies? 



C. Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and pharmacists? 



D. Medical profession (individually and collectively) ? 



E. Others? 



9. Are these respective responsibilities the same in the case of rapid mass 

 application and in the case of gradual individual application of new drugs? 



10. Are present Federal laws adequate for the discharge of Federal respon- 



Ei Ibid., pp. 142-143. 



« U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and ForeiCTi Commerce. Health Inquiry 

 (Poliomyelitis). Hearings before the ♦ • • on the Causes, Control, and Kemedies of the 

 Principal Diseases of Mankind. Pt. 3, Oct. 6 and 12, 1953, 83d Cong., 1st sess. (Washing- 

 ton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953.) 



" House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Poliomyelitis vaccine. Hear- 

 ings, pt. 2, op. cit., p. 3. 



