24 
1 We also endorse the conclusion of representa- 
2 tives of critical disciplines in epidemiology , infectious 
3 disease, medical microbiology, and virology as advisors. 
4 Their expertise and the workshops such as the Falmouth 
5 meeting, the Ascot meeting, and the workshop in Washington 
6 on Risk Assessment of Agricultural Pathogens provide, we 
7 believe, essential, valuable information for this process. 
8 We believe that such an approach is sound, and 
9 it increases the confidence and quality of decision-making. 
10 New hosts and vectors in recombinant DMA research are to 
11 be expected, and the procedures for evaluating then or 
12 assigning them appropriate containment levels have been 
13 developed, we believe,- by MIH. 
14 The second area deals with changes in containment 
15 levels. During the last two years there have been dramatic 
16 contributions on DMA recombinant research, as we are all 
<17 aware. And concern over the freedom of research and protec- 
18 tion of the public in such a rapidly changing field will 
19 continue to be characteristic of this area, 
20 We support the approach oy MIH to continue to 
21 review the risk-assessment data of host-vector systems to 
22 provide conservative guidelines. The lowering of contain- 
23 ment levels for recombinant DMA research based on viral 
24 vectors following the detailed evaluation experience with 
25 animal viruses — the ESCO meeting and the Ginsberg report - 
[116] 
