8 
other ecperiments is delegated to the IBCs. 'Rie types of experiments to 
be reviewed amd IBC review procedures mi^t be modified by RAC. RAC may 
wish to peonit the IBCs greater leeway in lowering oontaiment for certain 
experiments. Ct. Gottearan noted that her proposal does not alter the 
status of currently exempt ecperiments. 
Ptr. Dedoz said that specialists in generad tend to develop tixinel-vision 
so that their own (xmcems becooe uppennost in their minds. He noted that 
nany lave amd guidelines regulate cxjr daily lives, and that even if the 
NIH Guidelines were eliminated, other agencies might institute guidelines 
or regulations. Mr. Dedoz expressed his support for the December 7, 1981, 
proposed; he said, in any event, the IBCs should be retained. 
Cr. McKinney said he had discussed the December 4 and December 7 proposads 
with scientists, lawyers, and representatives of oommercial organizations. 
He said the researchers he had spoken with aue approximately evenly divided 
in their support of mandatory vs. voluntary Guidelines. Regarding the 
cirrent prohibitions, Ck:. McKinney said nany people felt certain experiments 
should be monitored and controlled. 
cr. McKinney said that previcxialy the RAC had extricated itself from 
'regulating* large-scade activities. He felt the reintroduction of the 
question of how to oversee large-scale work was retrogressive; RAC should 
address scientce issues and avoid ra^iewing lacge-scade activities per se . 
Finally, Cr. McKinney noted that seme correspondents mentioned the negative 
effects the Guidelines have had on research. He said the exmmittee must 
also take into account the beneficial aspects of the review process; in 
his view the benefits far outweigh any negative aspects. He said RAC 
would be roniss if it eliminated oversight over reexmbinant DT^ research 
before more data are acoxnulated. 
Mr. Mitchell said he had made a rough euialysis of the opinions submitted 
by conmentators on the proposals. According to his estimate, approximately 
half favored the Deconber 4 proposal; the other half favored either the 
current Guidelines or modest changes therein, or the December 7 proposed. 
Mr. Mitchell said the press gives the impression that the recombinant ENA 
field is advancing very rapidly. These accounts do not support the edlega- 
tion that the Guidelines have inhibited research. He suggested that should 
the NIH ciiange the Guidelines substantially, RAC would find itself in an 
mtenzble position; it would forfeit the opportimity to "nove" the bedi- 
nology on a rational basis, and inifocmity of standards would be lost. 
Mr. Mitchell suggested that adoption of the Deoonber 4, 1981, proposed would 
destroy sene of the scientific conmnity's credibility. He said that 
should Congress ever again consider national legislation, scientists could 
no longer argue they were follo%n.ng a policy of self-regulation. 
[ 337 ] 
