12 
«^ich she is ocrarutted. She said there have been two serious violations of 
the Quidelines in the past year, emd she thinks it is a reflection of the 
lack of oonoem of this oanrdttee that those items 2 u:e not on the agenda 
before Fropo6^ULs to relax the Guidelines. She felt that disnantling the 
mechanisms that have been set up to enforce the Guidelines will signal the 
very snail minority of scientists who pursue their research goals irrespon- 
sibly that high standards in research are no longer a concern. In addition, 
she felt that nany scientists, perhaps the majority, would maintain that 
deliberate construction of hazardous organisms by recombinant CNA tediniques 
is possible and is of oonoem. In view of these considerations, she felt 
the present system of controls, specificidly the IBCs and their links to 
NIH, is imfX5rtant for the following reasons: (1) The IBCs constitute an 
ijip^rtant screening device for detecting hazards, and ensuring that experi- 
ments which entail hazau:xls are performed under suitable conditions. (2) 
The IBCs serve eis em ijifx>rtant reminder to researchers that their peers 
and community manbers taJce the safety of their work seriously. (3) The 
IBCs can serve as bodies to which employees can turn if they believe that 
research is being inproperly conducted. This last point is very iitportant 
to workers who are not represented by trade inions. 
Dr. Wright contended that the cost in money and time of registration of 
these experiments is insignificant compared to edl the other paperwork 
that U.S. researchers are asked to undertaice. Ihe benefits in the main- 
tenance of high standards and the avoidance of harmful experiments are 
very substantial and should be taken seriously in any society that is 
committed to the protection of the interests of edl its members, not only 
the interests of those having the greatest access to the decision-making 
arenas. The history of regulation of other fields, for example, drugs, auto 
safety, heedth and s^dety in the workplace, shows that, in genered, controls 
were not introduced until the social costs of accidents had become very 
high, really intolerable. Each potentiedly avoidable injury or death 
refxresents a cost in hunan suffering v^ich cannot be absorbed into any 
cost-benefit equation. Cne of the original motives for the controls for 
recombinant DMA technology was to avoid repeating that pattern in this 
new field. She hoped the RAC members would nviintain that commitment as 
they proceed to make a decision on this proposal. 
Dr. Baltimore said that PI is a much higher standard of laboratory conduct 
than has historically been common practice. Most RAC members appear to 
accept the notion that there is minimal perceptible hazard associated with 
recombinant DNA. The RAC should attempt to construct Guidelines reflecting 
that view. 
Dr. Krimsky said that our society is facing eui explosion of biological 
technology i4:ich will result in the exposure of more individuals to more 
types of organisms in more facilities. He felt there has been a paucity of 
controlled experiments to test the hypothesis that there is no risk beyond 
that associate with other types of biological research. That conclusion 
has been drawn on the entailable information, but not from a systematic 
set of experiments. 
[101 J 
