Dr. Gartland 
2 
12 January 1982 
workers In direct contact with the organisms and are not likely to 
result In danger to the community or the environment. 
We are not only concerned with the paucity of Information but also 
with the lack of mechanisms for Its dissemination. Many workers using 
modern genetic technology are not versed In pathogenic microbiology and 
cannot be assumed to have proper training or access to up-to-date 
Information . 
In the light of these concerns, we believe that guidelines are necessary, 
and that they should continue to be revised In the light of new know- 
ledge. Specifically, we believe the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee 
(RAC) should continue to exist. It should be the principal resource for 
Information gathering and for dispersal, and be available for consulta- 
tion regarding Individual cases. At present. It should continue to 
recommend suitable procedures for experiments dealing with potent toxins 
and the artificial Introduction of resistance traits to clinically use- 
ful drugs. 
Because we are of the opinion that the central concern Is for the proper 
education of workers In the field, we recommend that local Institutional 
Biosafety Committees CiBC) take on a greater role In advising and reg- 
ulating the activities within their Institutions. Local control Is 
more likely to be effective and appropriate to special conditions. We 
believe that Individual Institutions will be Increasingly aware of their 
social obligations and liability, and will continue to devise bodies 
suitable to overview such activities. 
Sincerely yours. 
H.O. Halvorson, Ph.D. 
Chairman, Public and Scientific 
Affairs Board 
Moselfo Schaechter, Ph.D. 
Chairman, Committee on Genetic, 
Molecular and Systematic Microbiology 
[ 660 ] 
