2 
1) To my mind, neither of the new proposals seems to 
make it clear that HVl is the lowest permitted level of biological 
containment. In the current Guidelines this was achieved by always 
talking of Pl-EKl etc. In the new, the only statement lies in 
section II - D-1, paragraph 2, and it is pretty weak; must one use 
HVl, or better? I believe this should be clarified, and HVl should 
be required. 
2) Why does the Working Group retain in the main text 
all the hoopla about HV2 and 3 when only HV2 is referred to and 
then only in Appendix G? Dr. Gottesman has also picked up this 
general point. 
3) Why the prohibitions? Is it not more realistic to 
call them case-by-case on approval of the Director, NIH etc.? 
They are all judgement calls anyway. I agree in principle with 
Dr. Gottesman here. 
4) The first sentence of para. 2 of section III 
(Working Group), including the footnote, seems too vague. Recommended 
by whom? And are all possible pathogens recommended by someone or 
other? I recognise the can of worms that this opens in view of 
the reluctance of the NIH and the RAC to start identifying con- 
tainment levels for viruses and cells etc., but Dr. Gottesman and 
the Working Group has already broken the seal on the can and I 
think that it is necessary for the latter to be a bit more specific. 
We are a long way down that road in Canada, and it seems to be 
working, given our procedures. 
2 . Procedures 
The specific point here relates to the recommendations 
on the existence of IBC's. 
The Canadian MRC Biohazards Committee, which plays the 
RAC role in the Canadian context, and which has had a very different 
history from the RAC, has frequently discussed the issue of post -hoc 
responsibility as might be determined by the courts in the event of 
an accident. This issue had greater immediacy to our Guidelines than 
yours because ours cover known pathogens as well as conjectural ones. 
It was generally agreed that, in the event?fectual harm arising from 
an accident, the courts would probably find the investigator and the 
institution responsible, probably in that order, and perhaps even if 
negligence was not proven, and would find the organisation that issued 
the standards responsible only in the extent that those standards could 
be shown to be negligent. An institution cannot exercise its 
...3 
[ 668 ] 
