bill 
uni 
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY 
ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC. 
Upton. New York 11973 
(516) 345-3420 
December 13, 1979 
Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson 
Building One 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, Maryland 20205 
Dear Dr. Fredrickson: 
I am writing in support of the proposed revised NIH Guidelines as 
published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1979. 
Having been a member of RAC since the first meeting oi ^hat Committee in 
February, 1975, I have been impressed with the orderly change of opinion of 
Committee members in response to the steady accumulation of data indicating 
that possible hazards of recombinant DNA research not only are not what they 
seemed at the first meeting, but probably do not exist at all. Such a change 
of opinion has taken place in both scientists and nonscientist members in 
response to the evidence presented to the Committee. To be sure, there 
remains a relatively small minority of Committee members who believe that 
more caution should be used in recombinant DNA research than is reflected in 
the new oroposed Guidelines. Their views have, I think, been thoroughly 
considered by the majority. Furthermore, it seems to me that this group is 
also responding to the evidence, in that I h-,ve detected in most of these 
individuals considerable change of opinion about what should be the constraints 
imposed on recomoinant DNA work (in the direction of fewer of them). 
It has now become obvious that the enormous benefits of the recombinant 
DNA technology for human life are coming faster than was thought possible at 
the time of the first RAC meeting. Since there is no evidence that there is 
any hazard to an individual performing the manipulations permitted under the 
proposed revised Guidelines (or to the public), it is entirely appropriate 
for NIH to take a step that will facilitate the intellectual and oractical 
benefits of the technology by its approval of the new version. 
Sincerely yours, 
JKS:s 
[ 473 ] 
