Tlw Ohio Stato Ufihroraily Unhroralty Hoalth Sorvtco 
^ Division of 
Environmentai Heaith 
and Safety 
John W. Wilce Student 
Heaith Center 
1875 Mliiikin Road 
Coiumbus, Ohio 43210 
Phone 614 422-2112 
Or. William J. Gartland 
Office of Recombinant DNA Activities 
National Institute of Health 
Bethesda, MD 20014 
Dear Bill: 
I have been reading In the popular press about some more relaxation of 
the NIH Guidelines on recombinant DNA work. I am particularly concerned 
about the experiments with genes which control bacterial toxins. Based 
on my past experience, I would suggest a cautious approach to this 
relaxation. 
In the mid 1960's, staphylococcus enterotoxin was being Investigated as 
a potential incapacitating agent in the biological warfare program. The 
protocol called for the propagation and purification of large amounts of 
the toxin. At Ft. Detrick, Maryland, and especially at the Directorate 
of Biological Operations in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, we found that many of 
our laboratory technicians developed an allergic state when we decreased 
some of our containment criteria. In some of the people the allergic 
reaction involved the eyes and in others the reaction was a severe respira- 
tory distress. We had very few problems with classical enterotoxin intoxi- 
cations, but we had many man-hours lost due to the allergic reactions. 
Staphylococcus enterotoxin is not classified as a lethal toxin but its 
reactivity as a hyperallergen created conditions in some individuals that 
were nearly lethal. 
I am not certain that the enterotoxins and the allergen are the same 
chemical molecule, and I am not certain that all bacterial toxins are as 
potent as staph enterotoxin. Until the answers are known, I recommend 
against relaxation of the guidelines. I can visualize the sensitization 
of laboratory workers in a recombinant DNA laboratory and a shock expression 
from an incidental contact away from the laboratory. 
Very truly yours. 
Biological Safety Officer 
/It 
May 14, 1981 
[5961 
