6 
industry. Dr. Johnscxi of Eli Lilly and Conpar^ said that at Eli Lilly pce- 
anployment physicals are cannon practice. Ihey are available to all employees 
but mandatory for many; pre-employment £^ysicals are nandatory for workers 
in production and research. Dr. Johnson said Eli Lilly viewed recombinant ENA 
technology as no different than other fermentation technologies; Eli Lilly 
therefore employs standard practice in medical surveillance. Dr. Fildes, 
vice-president of the Industrial Biotechnology Asscx:iation (IBA), said IBA 
member canpanies have implemented a number of medical surveillance prograns. 
Dr. Iblin stated her view that recombinant DNA technology should not be singled 
out for special medical surveillance programs. 
Dr. Henry of the Health Industry Manufacturer's Association (HIMA) asked 
permission to cxmment. He said HIMA is a trade association representing 266 
medical device and diagnostic product manufacturers. HIMA member compenies 
will undcxhtedly atplcy recembinant ENA technology at s:xte time. HIMA believes 
that while the CDC/NIOSH report has thou^tfully considered the majority of 
pertinent issues, it does not arrive at a proper conclusion. HIMA believes 
that the report recommends medic:al surveillance cxi the basis of two weak argu- 
ments; (1) that medical surveillance affords a means for assessing the effec- 
tiveness of physical and biological containment, and (2) medical surveillance 
provides for early detec:tion of inanticipated illness. Er. Henry said these 
arguments are valid only if the prcjcesses involve organisms which produce some 
known disease. As the health hazards of exposure to altered microorganisms 
appear to be minimal, these arguments would not ^ply to the vast majority of 
recxmbinant ENA applications. By the time a recombinant ENA containing micro- 
organism is used in large-scale production, it is a well characterized entity. 
[ 492 ] 
