- 6 - 
staff. At least one person should represent the health department of 
the local government. This person should be selected by the health 
department. The remainder of the non-af filiated members should be 
persons who may be reasonably expected to represent the interests of 
the community. 
The membership ratios EDF suggests are necessary to insure that 
IBCs will satisfactorily perform their oversight and regulatory roles. 
It is well known from studies of medical licensing and disciplinary 
boards and from the events surrounding the violations of the recombinant 
DNA guidelines at Harvard Medical School and University of California 
at San Francisco that peer review does not provide adequate public 
protection. The proposed guidelines' requirement for one non-facility 
member does not address this issue. There is no provision that this 
individual represent the public interest. The person could very well 
be a recombinant DNA scientist from a neighboring institution. 
Turning to confidentiality, EDF maintains that all IBC meetings 
should be announced and open to the public. All MUAs and project 
t 
registrations from institutions that must comply with the guidelines 
should also be available to the public. EDF's reading of applicable 
t 
statutes (5 U.S.C. §552 and 18 U.S.C. §1905) indicates that such 
information, submitted to IBCs or NIH, is not exempt from the pro- 
visions of the Freedom of Information. Act (5 U.S.C. §552). In light 
of their legal authority under the guidelines, IBCs are agencies within 
the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §552. 5 U.S.C. §552 gives NIH the discretion 
to withold trade secrets from the public. 18 U.S.C. §1905 provides a 
, cirminal penalty for violation of an explicit prohibition against re- 
vealing trade secrets or confidential statistical information. No 
[ 287 ] 
