10 
Dc. Holmes said he favored retaining nandatory Guidelines and the require- 
ment for IBCs. He rejected the argument that reconbinant DNA activities 
should not require oversight because other areas of microbiological or 
biomedical research do not have specied oversight. He said he would support 
the Decanber 7, 1981, proposal with the addition of a recommendation that 
IBCs also review non-reccrnbinant DtA research that is similar to research 
covered by Section III of the Guidelines. 
Cr. Baltimore reiterated his belief that reconbinant Dl^ research is no 
more hazardous than experiments in the mainstream of biomedical research. 
He felt this was the judgement of a majority of the scientific caiminity, 
and that the Dec»nber 4, 1981, proposed reflects this consensus. He said 
fear of lcx:al regulaticxi or fear of leaving industry with no cxx3e for 
legal protection were not re£i3ons for maintaining nandatory Guidelines. 
Adopticxi of the December 4, 1981, proposal would send a message to States 
and localities that the RAC cxxxrlu^s that regulations are not necessary. 
Finally, Baltimore said that the CDC "Classification of Etiolcjgical 
Agents c?n the Basis of Hazard" is not appropriate for use in classifying 
reexanb inant DNA experiments. 
Dr. Lewis of the National Science FOuneJation suggested greater flexibility 
in IBC specif icatfons might be desirable. Dr. Landy said that he supported 
the original Baltimore-Campbell prcposal, and subsequently the December 4, 
1981, propos^d, as the only intellectuedly honest recx> 9 iition of the relation- 
ship between the inestablished potentied risk in reexmbinant ENA research 
and knexn risk in other areas of research which are not regulated. In 
attanpting to rationalize support for greater ocxitrols ever reexmbinant 
DtA research than over work with knovn pathogens. Dr. Landy said the 
training, prccedures, and restraints applied by the selecrt group of investi- 
gators studying pathogens would not necessarily have been followed by all 
those row using recombinant LNA teciiniques. 
Dt. Gottesran cxancurred with Dr. Landy's rationalization and added that 
investigators studying pathogens know the preperties of these organisns; 
recemb inant organises might express uiexpecrted preperties. 
Dr. Maas said he saw no Icgic in having guidelines for exo type of expert 
imental procredure, which is rapidly becoming a very conmonly employed 
technique, and having no regulations for other types of more dangercxis 
prtxredures, such as work with chanical carcinogens. 
Dr. Gottesnan said that mandatory guidelines are not nec:essarily synononous 
with bureaucnracy. She noted that the December 7, 1981, prcposal no longer 
requires RAC review and NIH appreval for large-scale procedures; rather it 
specifies that large-scale experiments be approved by the IBC. She said 
the definition of large-scale might be revis^. Dr. Gottesnan agreed with 
Dr. Baltimore that the CDC Classification of Etiological Agents is not 
perfeert, but she said the alternative in the Dec:ember 4 prcposal of "use 
13391 
