MINUTES OF MEETING - March 6-7 
10 
The notion was carried by a vote of eighteen in favor, and none opposed. 
IX. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTION IV-D-2-a 
Ms. Cason said that tab 843/1 and 825 is a letter from Mr. David Lester 
of Princeton, New Jersey, proposing that Section IV-D-2-a, dealing with 
membership and procedures for the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), 
be amended so that "non-aff iliated members shall be appointed by the 
governing body of the community in which the institution is located." 
Ms. Cason said she was unable to support this proposal. While she felt 
that the public should have seme input in the selection process, she 
questioned the desirability of the community appointing these members. 
Dr. Talbot noted that two letters had been received during the public 
comment period, both opposing the proposal. 
Dr. Krimsky said that discussion of this issue raises the question of 
the effectiveness of IBCs. He asked whether IBC function has been evalua- 
ted. Dr. Talbot said that a study of IBCs in California has been initiated, 
and that NIH is considering letting a contract for a larger study, as well 
as having a meeting of IBC chairmen in the autumn. Dr. Krimsky suggested 
that the RAC should discuss the issue of assessment of IBCs since IBCs 
are playing an increasingly important role. 
Dr. Ahmed asked whether the current NIH Guidelines stipulate the composi- 
tion of the local IBC. Dr. Gartland responded that the Guidelines require 
that at least twenty percent of the IBC membership not be affiliated with 
the institution. He said the appointment procedure for non-aff iliated 
members differs from institution to institution. He added that the over- 
all composition of the IBC is reviewed by NIH. Dr. Bems said he opposed 
Mr. Lester's proposal, and raised the question of legal liability. 
Ms. King noted that legal liability would vary from jurisdiction to juris- 
diction and said she opposed mandating what she would consider political 
representation as opposed to commuity representation. She supported 
Dr. Krimsky' s proposal that the RAC review the functioning of IBCs. 
Dr. Krimsky moved to defer consideration of Mr. Lester's proposal until 
the RAC had a broader discussion of the effectiveness of local IBCs. 
Dr. Ahmed questioned the mechanism by which this review would occur. 
Ms. King suggested that the RAC discuss the issue at the June RAC meeting. 
She commented on a review of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in which 
she had participated, and suggested that a copy of the IRB report be 
distributed to the RAC as reference material. 
Dr. Young suggested it would be prudent to wait for the report of the 
group studying IBCs in California. Dr. Krimsky asked Dr. Gartland for 
additional information concerning the California study. Dr. Gartland 
said that Dr. Diana Dutton's group, which is conducting this survey, is 
[ 45 ] 
