9 
1 out of proportion to the need to instruct, advise, and 
2 assure proper practice with known biological hazards of 
3 all kinds. These committees have broad responsibilities 
4 that go far beyond recombinant DNA technology. 
5 The guidelines may be overly presumptive in 
5 mandating a specific style of lay representation for this 
7 particular committee, when many universities have already 
8 installed lay overview at several levels, including their 
g boards of regents, boards of public visitors, university/ 
10 community liaison committees, et cetera. In contrast to 
11 the human subjects committees, where broad concepts of 
12 social and ethical values are necessary to the very func- 
13 tion of the committee, the biological safety committee is 
14 an expert committee which needs breadth in expertise and 
15 which should not be diverted from its primary responsi- 
15 bility of safety. 
17 1 would call your particular attention to 
18 Section IV, where the roles and responsibilities of the 
ig various participants in this process are considered. 
20 These roles and responsibilities should be taken as a 
21 section which needs evaluation in practice. It should be 
22 discussed as a priority matter in any subsequent revision, 
23 and consideration be taken of new legislation and opera- 
24 tional experience. Clearly, when an expert panel such as 
25 the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee proposes that there 
[ 101 ] 
