Dr. William J. Gartland, Jr, 
January 29, 1982 
Page seven 
review process compels a deliberate and explicit consideration 
of the area of uncertainty as to potential hazards of certain 
experiments, and should not be lightly dismissed in favor of 
self-regulation. Second, the IBC review process provides a 
method to counteract the bias of the investigator, who is 
understandably eager to proceed with his research in an area 
he has already identified as promising. If the IBC member- 
ship is properly constituted, with representation of viewpoints 
other than those of research scientists reflected in its 
membership, we would have a mechansim with some promise of 
evaluating the research in an objective fashion. 
In summary, it is my opinion that the RAC proposal to 
dismantle the Guidelines and the review process would be a 
major mistake. Simplification of the Guidelines might well 
be useful, as proposed in the Alternative Proposal. But it 
is premature to conclude that an area of research as poten- 
tially hazardous as rDNA research should not be relegated to the 
control of the profession of science. 
Sincerely yours. 
Barry R. Furrow 
Professor of Law (Visiting) 
BRF/jhp 
(7471 
