Di rectors 
Page 2 
January 15, 1982 
would continue to engage in safety planning and anaij-.. 
their work with recombinant molecules because they have had 
to do so for almost a decade and have incorporated this activity 
into their research routine. However, there would be researchers 
who would not take precautions in the area of safety which 
are not required of them. In addition, there is a chance 
that some of these people might conduct recombinant DNA in- 
vestigations in some areas where the available knowledge is 
scant and the risk assessment work is still incomplete. 
I feel that the RAC proposal is both sound and wise but not 
at this point in time. In light of the growing evidence that 
many manipulations of recombinant DNA molecules are indeed 
safe, further relaxation of the NIH Guidelines would be in 
order. Any proposal that retains even the most rudimentary 
structure for the review of recombinant DNA investigations 
would provide a means of ensuring that even the least conscientious 
investigators will implement the minimal containment precautions. 
With certain modifications, the Goffesman proposal could serve 
as a guide. for most any institution should the RAC proposal 
be adopted, but, as previously stated, there would be institutions 
which would disolve their IBC's simply because it would no longer 
be required to ensure NIH funding. 
So, the wise many must plan for the potential mistakes of the 
unwise few. Recombinant DNA technology is rapidly approaching 
the point where it can take its place in the laboratory as 
a safe research laboratory. However, until that point is 
reached, some sort of organized structure for the review of 
recombinant DNA research activities should still be required 
at institutions with researchers engaged in this type of work 
if they are to continue to receive NIH funding. 
Sincerely, 
William E. Homovec 
Biological Safety Officer 
WEH/lhj 
[ 664 ] 
