-7- 
A similar picture emerges from an examination of each membership 
category in the IBCs (see Figure 3). All thirty committees had at least 
one scientist in an rDNA discipline, and ten percent (or three) of the 
committees contained only rDNA scientists. Related administrators and 
peripherally related scholars were each represented on about 60 percent of 
the IBCs in the sample. The percentage of committees with members from the 
nonexpert categories was much smaller; in fact .more than 70 percent of the 
IBCs surveyed had n£ representation at all of students, public citizens, 
workers, and nonrelated administrators, respectively. Overall, most of the IBCs 
in the sample included a limited number of different types of members. 
With these data, one can also examine the relationship between size 
of committee and breadth of representation , to see whether or not larger 
committees result in more diversified representation. Figure 4 shows the 
average number of membership categories represented in committees of different 
sizes, and indicates that up to a size of about ten members, breadth or 
representation did increase with size. Beyond ten members, however v.cne 
average size of IBCs in this sample) , the number of membership categories 
represented did not increase. 
Finally, the relationship of committee size to representation of non- 
expert and noninstitutional members is shown in Figure 5. The average 
percentage of rDNA scientists on committees declines sharply with increasing 
committee size up to ten members, after which it levels off at 
about 50 percent. The representation of institutionally affiliated 
members, on the other hand, is essentially unrelated to committee size, 
averaging from 90 percent to 100 percent regardless of the number of members. 
Minimal representation on IBCs of noninstitutionally affiliated individuals 
may be an issue if it is associated with lack of responsiveness to local 
community concerns. 
[ 393 ] 
