96 
1 The policy questions and the social risks of 
2 a tool as powerful as recombinant DNA research are 
3 simply being ignored by the present decision-makers. 
4 The result is a set of guidelines that does not reflect 
5 the kinds of concerns that such decisions properly 
g require. For example, page 33043 of the guidelines 
7 has the statement, "there was overwhelming sentiment 
g for exempting from the guidelines experiments involving 
g recombination of DNA within the same strains or from 
10 pairs of organisms that transfer genes in nature." 
11 Page 33051 addresses the question of the public's role 
12 in the exemption process by stating, in part, "the 
13 membership of the RAC will be broadened modestly, as 
14 needed for expertise, but provisions for public notice 
15 and opportunity for comment can be used to ensure 
15 adequate public input when the issues warrant." 
17 I ask, who will decide when the issues warrant 
ig that, and how can a modest increase in the RAC serve to 
19 provide the broad perspective that is necessary for the 
2Q social concerns that are involved with recombinant DNA 
21 research? 
22 The revised guidelines begin to implement this 
23 philosophy under language found in Part I-E -4 and E- 5 , 
24 and Part IV-B-l-d. The underpinning for these roles must 
25 be the assumption that if it occurs in nature it is okay. 
[ 188 ] 
