143 
1 however, the average size of IBC's in this sanple, the 
2 number of membership categories represented did not 
3 increase. 
4 Finally, the relationship of committee size 
5 to representation of non-expert and non- institutional 
6 members is shown in Figure 5 . The average percentage 
7 of recombinant DNA scientists on committees declined 
g sharply with decreasing committee sizes, up to ten 
9 members, after which it levels off at about 50 percent. 
10 The representation of institutionally affiliated members, 
11 on the other hand, is essentially unrelated to committee 
12 size, averaging from 90 percent to 100 percent, regardless 
13 of the number of members. This indication of minimal 
14 representation on IBC's of non- institutionally affiliated 
1 5 individuals may be an important policy issue if it is 
1 6 associated with the lack of responsiveness to local 
17 community concerns. 
18 From the information I have described, it is 
19 clear that extensive public or even non-scient if ic input 
20 on IBC's remains the exception rather than the rule. 
21 The increased specificity of public and worker represen- 
22 tation requirements in the revised guidelines may improve 
23 future opportunities for such input. However, as suggested 
24 by the pie-shaped diagram, individual committees currently 
25 contain so many science-oriented or in-house members, that 
C 235 ] 
