138 
1 to IBC's. Earlier versions of the guidelines focused on 
2 the responsibility of the IBC's to implement nationally 
3 determined regulatory requirements, and to provide the 
4 Office of rDNA activities with the information necessary 
5 for making final decisions on research proposals. There 
6 has since been a conscious shift toward locating more 
7 of the decision-making power at the local institutional 
3 level. Newly mandated activities, such as approving 
9 the initiation of certain proposed rDNA experiments, 
10 considering and acting upon requests for approval of 
11 single-step reductions in containment levels for 
12 experiments with purified DNA and characterized clones, 
13 and participating in the development of emergency plans 
14 for accidental spills and personnel contamination repre- 
15 sent significant scientific and social responsibilities. 
15 To fulfill these larger functions effectively, 
1 7 local biosafety committees must be procedurally sound and 
18 broadly representative. 
19 While the revised guidelines present a more 
20 explicit outline for IBC composition than did the 
21 original guidelines, the wording is still general enough 
22 to permit great variation in the structure, and hence, 
23 in the function of these committees. The present 
24 composition of IBC's, the representation of groups such 
25 as recombinant DNA scientists, scholars in other fields, 
[230] 
! 
