57 
1 individuals conducting the research activities. What 
2 the revised guidelines apparently mean is that the risks 
3 involving recombinant DNA research depend on the indi- 
4 viduals conducting the research, and the manner in which 
5 they conduct it. 
5 But safety is not the province of the researchers 
7 alone. It is the concern of the larger conmunity; and in its 
8 determination the researchers have an important role to play — 
g that is, the provision of factual informat ion j -but the local 
10 public is the one to bring the values and make the determin- 
11 at ion as to what risks are deemed acceptable. 
12 I have a problem in that regard with the comment 
13 in the guidelines that the motivation and good judgment on 
14 the part of the researchers are the keys to protecting the 
15 health and environment. I think that the value issues 
16 raised by that kind of approach are quite serious. 
17 Basically I guess what I want to say is that I 
18 think, today, largely the regulation of recombinant DNA research 
19 has relied too heavily on an old-boy network, and I think 
20 that this is perpetuated by the provisions which would 
21 regard, for example, the composition of the inst itutional 
22 biohazard committees. 
23 I think that it is very significant, if not the 
24 most significant aspect of the new guidelines, that they 
25 would delegate a large measure of responsibility to the 
[149] 
