7 
Ms. King noted that the Baltimore-Campbell proposal would put industry and 
academia on an equal footing. She said that the RAC should consider a special 
meeting and public hearing on the proposed changes. 
Dr. Gottesman noted that the current Guidelines are flexible and that the vast 
majority of experiments done today are exenpt. She feels that there are 
scientific reasons for having a group other than the principal investigator 
look at the experiments still covered by the Guidelines; they should be 
reviewed by IBCs. She said that the critical issues in Part IV of the Guide- 
lines are IBC prereview and cortpliance. She said that the working Group's 
proposal does not involve an immense administrative burden. 
Dr. Goldstein said that he also shares ccxicems about the scientific issues. 
He noted the number of new companies becoming involved in reoombinant DNA 
researoh. 
Dr. Brill stated that at a reoent public meeting regarding a genetic engineer- 
ing company in Madison, Wisconsin, no concerns were expressed about use of 
recombinant DNA technology. 
Dr. McKinney said that the handling of the prc*iibitions is an important issue. 
They could perhaps be changed to cautionary advisories. He also said that 
citation of CDC and USDA guidelines needs to be considered. He preferred that 
NIH retain seme form of guidance over recombinant research. 
With regard to the proposed revision of the OX guidelines. Dr. Bems said 
that he expects great improvement in the document in the near future. He had 
discussed proposed revisions of the NIH Guidelines at a recent Gordon confer- 
ence; most scientists there did not favor complete abolition of the Guidelines 
and favored instead something like the Baltimore-Can^*)ell prcposal. He also 
cited his local Ccxigressman's concern about the potential for increasing public 
concern about recombinant DNA technology. It is important in the Guidelines 
revision that public confidence be maintained. Dr. Zinder said that the public 
trusts academic researchers, but not industry. 
Dr. Gottesman stressed that under the Working Group's proposal, the IBC would 
make the decision c« containment using the CDC document only as guidance. 
Dr. Goldstein said that how the IBCs use and interpret the CDC guidelines 
should be made more explicit, so that there are uniform standards. 
Dr. McGarrity said that he is comfortable in accepting voluntary guidelines. 
He felt that the Working Group's background report is excellent and that per- 
haps an abridged version could be published for educating the general public. 
Dr. Holmes said that he supports retaining the current prohibition dealing 
with the introduction of drug resistance traits. He said that to make the 
Guidelines voluntary would be a mistake and could invite legislation. 
[ 198 ] 
