4 
She was also questioned when she said, "The use of this technology 
for commercial production, particularly in the chemical and mining industries, 
may well result in significant job loss .... The economic and health effects 
will be quite serious." She indicated that she meant that job loss could 
adversely affect health and that it is better to reduce exposure than to 
lose jobs. Others pointed out that significant hazards to workers today 
using conventional technology might be reduced in future processes employing 
recombinant DNA techniques. 
When she said, "The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) has 
proposed ( Federal Register , April 30, 1980, pp. 28904ff) the amending of 
the Guidelines to require membership by industry representatives," this was 
corrected by Dr. Johnson who noted that as stated in the Federal Register , 
the proposal was not the RAC's but rather his, and that it had been rejected 
by the RAC. 
Dr. Miller wondered whether Dr, Oliver's and the Subcommittee's priorities 
should not be directed toward known rather than highly theoretical risks. 
Dr. Oliver replied that she believed there was not enough information to say 
that recombinant DNA presents no significant health hazard. 
Dr. Irving Johnson and Dr. Bernard Davis 
Dr. Omenn next called on Dr. Irving Johnson, Vice-President of Research, 
Lilly Research Laboratories. He was accompanied by Dr. Bernard Davis, Professor 
of Bacterial Physiology, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Johnson distributed to 
the Subcommittee a lengthy statement plus three attachments giving: features 
of fermentors; a paper entitled "L-Asparaginase - A Case Study of an E. col i 
Fermentation Product"; and report on "Si te Visit, Eli Lilly Co., Large-Scale 
Recombinant DNA Production Facility." (These are appended as Attachment H.) 
[ 358 ] 
