INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE 
NATIONAL ACADEMY Of SCIENCES 
ZIOI CONSTITUTION AVCNUC WASHINGTON, O. C. tOAIS 
February 1, 1982 
Ray Thornton, J.D. 
President 
Arkansas State University 
State University AR 72467 
Dear Ray: 
After attending the synposluo at the recent AAAS meetings, studying the 
Baltlmore-Campbell proposal (Federal Register, December 4, 1981) and the 
Gottesman proposal (Federal Register, December 7, 1981), and discussing these 
matters with colleagues in several relevant fields of science and public 
policy, I have come to the conclusion that, at least for now, we should retain 
the mandatory nature of the guidelines for recombinant DNA research, and the 
requirement for Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBC). 
Vhlle almost all would agree that the probabilities of harm to workers or 
the public from recombinant DNA research are less— much less — than had been 
envisioned In 1975, It Is not possible to assert that there Is no risk at all, 
or that there are no unique features to risks from recombinant DNA research. 
IBCs serve the necessary functions of monitoring research and providing 
a national communications network about research in the field. No other 
groups perform these functions. Requirement for IBC approval may slow some 
research, but, for the most part, recombinant DNA research Is not seriously 
Impaired by this. 
About IS percent of recombinant DNA research comes under the guidelines 
now. The guidelines could and should be simplified and revised further, and 
the Gottesman proposal takes us significantly In that direction. Soon we 
could move even further so that only a very small percent of recombinant DNA 
work would require special restrictions. These restrictions are felt 
particularly keenly by certain subsets of the population of recombinant DNA 
researchers, for example, those working with Intact animal virus/animal cell 
systems, or those doing agricultural research and desiring to perform field 
experiments. Release of organisms with recombinant DNA Into the environment 
is prohibited. The Baltlmore-Campbell proposal would remove any restriction. 
The Gottesman proposal would require RAC review and NIH approval, not 
prohibition. The potential benefits of research with systems such as those 
mentioned above are great. We need to understand much more about host range 
and virulence of animal viruses, to develop new vaccines, and to develop crop 
plants that are resistant to destructive pests, etc. But it Is in these areas 
of large potential benefit that even a small, unpredlcted change (e.g. in host 
range of a virus) might produce a significant and different type of hasard 
[7591 
