11 
aMaiting the benefits of the technology. Dr. Nightingale said the iiipres- 
sion one receives depends on v^iom one talks to; she pointed to recent 
congressional hearings on the ndsbehaviour of certain scientists as evidence 
of a growing distrust of the scientist. 
Dr. Campbell said the RAC must decide whether its function is to deal with 
danger or to deal with fear. He believed RAC's function is to deal with 
danger. He said that in his judgement, by maintaining the Guidelines as 
presently constituted, RAC was delivering to the public the message that a 
group of responsible, serious, informed people perceive a danger v^ich 
should be regulated. 
Ms. King said that the question of reducing containment should not be 
uncoupled from the issue of ccMiverting the Guidelines to a voluntary code 
of standard practice. She said the path vhich RAC has been following, one 
of piecemeal erosion, would eventually result in an empty facade. At some 
point alcxig that path, ho%4ever, deliberate discussion and consideration 
of the process should be undertaken. In such a discussicxi, the issue of 
reducing containment is intimately linked to the ccxiversion of the Guide- 
lines to a voluntary code. Dr. McKinney supported a deliberate reassessment 
of the Guidelines. 
Dr. Gottesroan said she saw the Baltimore-Canpbell proposal as having three 
parts; (1) Elimination of the penalties from the Guidelines, which need 
not be coupled with other changes, wcxild move academia into the industrial 
mode. (2) Other procedural changes reconmended, i.e., eliminating IBCs, 
eliminating registration, etc. (3) Lowering of containment COTiditions. 
She said she perscxially would prefer to simplify some of the procedures 
without necessarily lowering all containment requirements to PI. 
Dr. Novick summarized his opinicxis as follows; (1) He strongly supported 
the notion of prudence in biological research. (2) He felt the notion of 
guidelines in this area is entirely correct and ^prcpriate. (3) At this 
stage in their evolution, a review and reassessment of the Guidelines was 
appropriate. (4) He very much wanted to see a uniform standard ^plied to 
both industry and academia. 
Dr. Baltimore reiterated his views on coupling of lowering of containment 
to conversion of the Guidelines to a code of standard practice. If the 
RAC agrees on lowering of ccmtainment to PI, then the ccmplicated regulatory 
edifice is unnecessary. 
Dr. Holmes said that groups either exert internal control or they invite 
societal regulation from the greater ccmmunity. He suggested that RAC 
learn the sentiment of the scientific ccmmunity; if a substantial minority 
of scientists opposes deregulation and deregulation occurs, the scientific 
community invites societal control frcm without. 
Dr. Susan Wright was recognized by Mr. Unomton. Dr. Vfiright offered the 
following observations. She said she has no particular ax to grind about 
recombinant DNA techniques, but she does have a historical perspective to 
[100] 
