7 
tion and practices. Cr. Kbson said it appeared that most members endorsed 
the idea of an "information cle 2 uring house.” Dr. McKinney said that such a 
"clearing house" would minimize confusion during the gestation period in 
the industry. A "clearing house" would thus serve the public good as the 
industry develops. 
USCA View 
Dr. Tblin of USDA said no large-scede submissions to the NIH under the Volun- 
tary Ccmpliance Progrem have yet dealt with issues of concern to USDA; most of 
these early submissions deed with hutian heedth products. U5DA is primarily 
concerned with quarantine regulations, the release of organisms into the 
environment, and the regulation of vaccines and food products. Nonetheless, 
USDA feels infommtion sharing between agencies to be most appropriate — the 
Federzd Interagency Ccmittee on Reconbinant DNA Research and RAC are valuable 
in this sense to the USDA. She said USCA would cooperate with EPA in the 
development of processes to evaluate proposals in which recanbirwmt CNA- 
oontaining organisms would be disseminated in the environment, should the 
NIH no longer preside a forum. 
FDft, Bureau of Drugs V/iews 
Dr. Miller of FDA’s Bureau of Drugs said that FDA had considered linking the 
FDA approval process for pharmaceuticals to oonpliance with the NIH Guidelines 
the companies would not have bo prepare complete environmental impact state- 
ments if they adhere to the NIH Guidelines during development and production 
of pharmaceutic5ds. He felt that NIH acceptance of the proposal to convert 
the Guidelines to a "code of standard practice," would not significantly 
affect the FDA appro/ed process for pharmaceuticals. FDA has found the NIH's 
review of large-scale proposals useful but not so useful as to justify this 
additional level of regulation. 
1187 ) 
