10 
Et. Gottesman then moved the following three part proposal : 
(1) Eliminate the requirement for NIH review of IBC decisions on any 
experiments for which containment levels are specified in the 
Guidelines, 
(2) Defer consideration of eliminating prior review of experiments (by 
the IBC) until the frequency of principal investigator error in 
selecting the appropriate containment levels has been determined, 
and 
(3) IBCs keep records of recombinant ENA research done in the institu- 
tion, including a record of the frequency of errors in classification 
of experiments by the principal investigator. 
Ms. King seconded the motion. 
Dr. Novick preposed that ORDA continue to receive, collect and evaluate 
MUAs during the interim period in which the IBC survey is being conducted. 
Dr. Gottesman did not accept this amendment to her proposal. Dr. Mason 
suggested that IBC function could be monitored without central registra- 
tion. 
Mr. Coley asked whether Dr. Singer's proposal might shut off lines of 
communication between local IBCs and ORDA. He noted some uncertainty at 
the IBC level in interpretation of the Guidelines. Dr. Singer replied 
that her proposal would not alter OREft's advisory function to IBCs and 
principal investigators (Pis). 
Dr. Campbell noted that the NIH Guidelines set minimal standards and that 
institutions, if they wish, may impose additional requirements beyond what 
the Guidelines require. 
Dr. Fedoroff asked Dr. Gottesman why IBC review should be required, rather 
than letting the PI interpret the Guidelines. Dr. Gottesman replied that 
IEC prior review should continue for the following reasons: (1) IBC prior 
review would result in a more thorough review by individuals with varied 
perspectives; (2) The IBC has less of a conflict of interest in setting 
containment levels; (3) The IBC is more practiced in reading the Guidelines 
and evaluating proposals; and (4) RAC has some data suggesting that the 
IBCs function well, but no data on how correctly Pis evaluate containment 
levels . 
The RAC then voted separately on the different parts of the motion. 
A 
The RAC voted fifteen in favor, three opposed, with no abstentions, to 
eliminate the requirement for NIH review of IBC decisions on any experi- 
ments for which containment levels are specified in the Guidelines. 
Dr. Goldstein wished to be recorded as voting against the proposal. 
[169] 
