of MUAs and discussion of policy matters and other business. Hie commit- 
tees on the average reviewed sixteen MUAs in 1979, but the range went 
from one MUA to sixty-eight MUAs. The amount of time spent in review of 
an MUA averaged thirty- two minutes, but values ranged frcm six minutes 
per MIA to an hour and forty-three minutes per MUA. Four percent of 
all MUAs were rejected. Dr. Maas pointed out that draft MUAs are often 
first checked informally with the IBC Chairman or with QRDA before formal 
submission to the IBC. 
Less than a third of the committees felt that special health surveillance 
was necessary in regard to emergency plans in case of accidental spills. 
Seme IBCs focused on internal laboratory procedure, others focused on the 
relationship between laboratories and external agencies. The task of 
training laboratory staff was delegated primarily to the principal invest- 
igator. Training for IBC members ranged from none to a fairly elaborate 
system involving training documents, discussions and laboratory tours. 
The assessment of the Guidelines and IBC function by the chairpersons and 
the nonaf filiated members was, on the whole, positive. The chairpersons 
tended to emphasize the positive aspects of Guideline flexibility, while 
the nonaf filiated members stressed the watchdog and public relations 
role of the IBCs. 
While the majority of non-af filiated members are local citizens or public 
health officials, seme twenty-five percent are life or recombinant DNA 
scientists. Dr. Dutton felt that this is not in technical violation of 
the Guidelines but is in seme conflict with the intent of the Guidelines. 
Both the chairpersons and the nonaf filiated members were modestly positive 
about the role of nonaf filiated members. Sixty-one percent of the chair- 
persons felt the stipulation that twenty percent of the IBC membership be 
nonaf filiated was appropriate. Thirteen percent of nonaff iliated members 
thought that their contributions were not valuable. Approximately half 
of the committees said all of their meetings were open to the public; about 
half said none of their meetings were open to the public. Dr. Dutton 
felt IBCs were not making sufficient effort to reach out into the community 
and solicit participation. In conclusion. Dr. Dutton noted great diversity 
in California's IBCs with respect to their membership, scope of activities, 
performance, etc. 
The Committee discussed with Dr. Dutton her data and her interpretation 
of them. Dr. McGarrity questioned whether unannounced meetings could be 
termed open public meetings. Dr. Bems said that advertising a meeting 
far in advance introduced an element of inflexibility into scheduling. 
t 
Dr. Ahmed asked Dr. Dutton to state her conclusions on industrial, IBCs. 
Dr. Dutton replied that industrial IBCs compared to university IBCs are 
less accessible to the public, have higher MUA approval rates, have more 
elaborate health surveillance programs, and provide better training for 
staff and IBC members. 
[ 163 ] 
