6 
Dr. Fredrickson then asked for the Committee's views on NIH's acting 
as a lead agency to handle voluntary compliance. Dr. Duda of the Depart- 
ment of Energy questioned whether NIH has the necessary experience to 
deal with the industrial sector, with all of the attendant problems con- 
cerning proprietary data. He noted that the NIH experience has been 
mainly with academia rather than industrial organizations and 1 aboratories. 
On the other hand, a number of Committee members, including Dr. Lewis 
of the National Science Foundation and Dr. Graumann of Agriculture, 
strongly believed that NIH should provide for voluntary compliance. They 
noted the key importance of one Federal locus to handle these activities 
and clearly nominated NIH in view of its necessary expertise. Mr. Murray 
of the EPA concurred. 
Mr. Walsh of the Department of State agreed that NIH should be the 
locus, at least in the absence of legislation or the invoking of regu- 
lations, but believed that protection of proprietary data might be 
troublesome for NIH. Dr. Gryder of FDA acknowledged the burden of 
dealing with proprietary data, but held that mandatory registration of 
projects should be considered in addition to the voluntary approach. 
Dr. Fredrickson pointed out, however, that mandatory registration would 
require a statute, and there was general agreement that legislation was 
not warranted at the present time to accomplish this end. 
Agency Views on the Draft Supplement 
Dr. Fredrickson then requested each agency's views on the draft 
supplement. All of the research agencies represented on the Committee 
approved of the NIH approach to try to achieve voluntary compliance. 
These agencies include: 
[ 137 ] 
