lists his "major research area" as "studies on the ecology of bacteria..." 
Dr. Upper and Dr. Coplin have published research articles in the journal, 
"Applied and Environmental Microbiology." 
Then, going even further, although neither the National Environmental 
Policy Act, nor the CEQ Regulations implementing it, nor the HHS General 
Administration Manual require it, the NIH, in the April 15, 1985, Federal 
Register , announced that it would accept public comments on the 
January 21, 1985, EA-FONSI. Among the public comments received the following 
are relevant. Dr. Gustafson wrote that the EA-FONSI Involved "responsible, 
well informed scientists." Dr. Brill wrote of involvement of "many individuals 
with diverse experience in areas relevant to the proposed project." 
Dr. Spurrier wrote that "the expert consultants who were involved are 
world-renowned for their scientific credibility and judgment." Dr. Suslow 
wrote that "the EA. . .involves the expertise of some excellent research plant 
pathologists and well qualified advisors." 
Mr. Rogers attached to his May 14 letter, declarations from Dr. Pimentel and 
Dr. Gliessman. I assume that had Mr. Rogers received additional declarations 
criticizing the EA-FONSI from ecologists or from others, he would have 
attached them also. 
I believe that the NIH has gone far beyond all requirements in soliciting 
comments on the EA-FONSI, and that no further action should be undertaken 
in response to the comments given in Section III-A-3-b-(9) . 
III-A-3-b-(ll) . In his May 14 letter, Mr. Rogers states: 
"The environmental assessment on the application for the University 
of California experiment is inadequate. It contains many of the 
same shortcomings that were part of the NIH's approach to the issue 
in court. 
"The EA fails to justify the conclusion that the experiment will 
have no significant environmental impacts because it fails to 
consider adequately the risks involved. Accordingly, we request 
that the NIH withdraw the EA and the FONSI, conduct the additional 
experiments requested in these comments and make a new evaluation 
before Issuing another EA. In light of the unresolved environmental 
issues and potential impacts Involved, it would be preferable for 
the NIH to prepare an EIS on the experiment at the outset rather than 
going through the interim step of preparing an EA. Had the NIH done 
so at the outset, the EIS could have been completed by this time and 
it will undoubtedly prove to be necessary." 
III-3-A-b-( 12) . My Response to Comments in Section III-A-3-b-(ll) 
Mr. Rogers states that the EA is inadequate and that is "contains many 
of the same shortcomings that were part of the NIH's approach to the issue 
in court." It should be noted that neither the District Court nor the 
Appeals Court has to date considered the adequacy of January 21, 1985, EA-FONSI. 
17 
[ 181 ] 
