9 
that need, and since the proposal had been published in the Federal Register , 
action might be taken on it today. She said she herself doubted the wisdom 
of this aE^>roach. She st^gested rather that a subconmittee of RAC, selected 
«id.th a balance of expertise and perspective, should study the issues and 
present to the RAC at a future meeting an array of policy options on the 
existence, nature, and content of the Guidelines. Such a procedure is more 
liJcely to lead to decisions that are balanced, well-thought through and 
have maximum potential to be perceived as such by those not engaged in the 
research in question. 
Dr. Canpbell said he thought his proposal was an appropriate action at 
this time. Removing the regulatory aspects of the Guidelines is coupled 
to reducing the required containment levels. He stated that he would not 
support eliminating the regulatory aspects of the Guidelines if he believed 
there was some hazard worth regulating. 
Dr. Campbell then discussed various aspects of the proposal. He said the 
proposal did not specify any containment level cxi the basis of the clcxied 
segment's origin; that omissicxi is deliberate. He and Dr. Baltimore felt 
that, except for the few cases covered under the prohibitions, a small 
segment of DNA inserted into a ncxipathogenic host-vector system would 
not create a pathogen, ^propriate levels of containment for a pathogenic 
host-vector system would, oti the other hand, be specified by the CDC Guide- 
lines. 
Dr. Cari 5 t»ell then called the committee's attention to a sentence in Part 
III of the proposal: 
"As a general practice, investigators should use the highest 
level of biological containment (HV3 > HV2 > HVl) v^ich is 
available and epprcpriate for the purposes of the experiment." 
He said he viewed the sentence as an admonition for simple prudence; vhere 
more biologically contained systems cure available, and their use doesn't 
interfere in any way with performing the experiment, their use should be 
encouraged. Ch the other hand some feel this sentence is boo strcxig; they 
say vp^iere there is no perceived hazard it is silly to be telling people to 
use higher containment levels. 
Dr. Carpbell said the proposal would eliminate most of Part IV v*iich speci- 
fies procedures, but retain Section IV-E v^ich defines RAC composition and 
procedures. I^rt VI of the Guidelines dealing with voluntary compliance 
would be eliminated, as all of the Guidelines would be voluntary, except 
for the secticxis dealing with protection of proprietary infonnation volun- 
tarily submitted. The prohibitions specified in the current Guidelines 
would still apply. He said he and Dr. Baltimore felt each prohibition 
should be discussed cxi an individual basis. 
Dr. Baltimore added that he saw the maintenance of the RAC as very impor- 
tant. The most important RAC functicxi would be to maintain surveillance 
[ 98 ] 
