4 
Two hundred emd twelve individuals attended the meeting, including repre- 
sentatives from 154 IBCs. Anong the participants were 21 individuals 
from the industrial sector and five IBC ccmmunity mernbers. Four current 
RAC menbers, Ms. King, Dr. Krims)^, Dr. Mason, and Mr. ntomton, and 
some former RAC menbers, participated. In a panel cxi the operation of 
IBCs, three IBC chairpersons. Dr. Patrick Gage of Hoffman-LaRoche, 
Dr. Alan Garber of Baylor College of Medicine and Dr. Melvin Chalfen of 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, addressed problems vbich would be 
examined in conference workshops, and Mr. Robert Spanner evaluated IBC 
function from the vantage point of a ccmmunity member. Three vrorkshcps 
subsequently addressed problems associated with (1) the IBC as a means 
of inplementing institutional oversi^t, (2) health surveillance, monitor- 
ing and certification, and (3) procedures and operations. R^>orts frcm 
the workshop leadership teams, composed of a RAC member, an IBC chair- 
person and an NIH staffer, were presented at a plenary session the follow- 
ing morning. (A transcript of the plenary session appears under tab 977). 
At this session several recommendations were voted. One of these recom- 
mendations is that experiments currently covered by Section III-O should 
be exenpted from the Guidelines. 
Dr. Krause said mar^ of the chairpersons believed much had been achieved 
at the meeting. As a consequence of this view, of concerns expressed 
for other safety issues, and of a vote taken at the IBC Chairpersons 
meeting, NIAID was reconsidering the IBC evaluation plan. NIH is tenta- 
tively planning to broaden the scope of the evaluation to include safety 
matters other than recombinant DNA issues. 
Dr. Krimsky said the transcript of the plenary session (tab 977), accurately 
reflected the tone of the meeting. He said that one point of disagreement 
among the participants was on the question of vhether there should be 
biosafety committees, or vAiether their functions could be performed better 
by some other method. 
Dr. Mason commented on the health surveillance, monitoring and certifica- 
tion workshc^. He said there had been a great deal of discussion on the 
cost/benefit ratio of health surveillance programs. Ihe consensus was 
that if unusual medical surveillance were to be required, it should be 
well defined and carefully controlled in order to obtain reasonable data. 
No workshop participant felt there was justification for such an in-depth 
program; but to do less, if one really was worried, was not sensible. 
Most participants felt heavy stress should be placed on education in 
good laboratory practices and procedures for all potentially hazardous 
work. To single out recombinant DNA for special enphasis was unwarranted. 
Dr. Baltimore asked if positive support for any part of the Guidelines 
had been evidenced at the meeting. Mr. Ihomton replied that participants 
indicated that the Guidelines reflect a consensus hammered out between 
science and society. 
[ 32 ] 
