6 
(one to three) v«re examined. He said disease surveillance should not be 
confused with an enployee health care program. Mr. Pauker ccaicurred saying 
that medical surveillance can be as siirple as recording incidence of illness. 
He noted that many larger oorrpanies are currently doing this. He said both 
EPA and NIOSH have received requests for informat icai in this area from companies 
planning to move into the area of recombinant ENA technology. 
Dr. Henry suggested that the vorking group begin to consider how an evaluation 
of IBC function vould be made. Dr. McKinney suggested the scope of the study 
be limited to IBCs dealing with large-scale procedures. He suggested the 
vorking group could request the minutes of IBC meetings. Dr. Gartland said 
two large-scale proposals from universities will be reviewed at the April 23-24, 
1980 RAC meeting. He said nineteen industrial IBCs are currently registered 
with ORDA, but only four of these conpanies are currently performing large-scale 
procedures. He did not know if these industrial IBCs would be willing to 
submit the minutes of their proceedings to the working group for review. 
Mr. Pauker and Dr. Bems felt the companies would cocperate. Dr. McKinney 
pointed out that in all likelihood these IBC minutes would have to be treated 
as prcprietary information. Dr. Gartland agreed. Mr. Barbeito felt the working 
group should examine the cotiposition of IBCs monitoring large-scale procedures 
e.g., does the IBC possess the requisite expertise to review the facilities? 
Did the IBC examine and consider the important issues associated with large- 
scale fermentation technology? 
Dr. Bems questioned v^iether an IBC survey, such as the preliminary survey of 
California IBCs performed by a Stanford Uhiversity group, would be appropriate. 
[ 84 ] 
