- 11 - 
III . Discussion and Plans for Future Research 
From the above information, it is clear that extensive public, or even 
nonscientific , input on IBCs remains the exception rather than the rule. 
The increased specificity of public and worker representation requirements 
in the revised guidelines may improve future opportunities for such input. 
However, as suggested by Figure 2, individual committees may contain so 
many science-oriented or 'in-house' members that even the mandatory presence 
of a public representative (as required in the revised guidelines) may have 
only a limited effect. Unfortunately, little is now known about the selection 
process for public and worker representatives, and it is not specified in 
the new guidelines; thus the degree to which these members represent a 
constituency or merely reflect administrative decisions already made at 
the institutional level, remains uncertain. 
To provide information on these and issues concerning IBC structure 
and function, the project at Stanford with which I am working plans to 
undertake a two-stage research process. First, a survey will be conducted 
of all 150 IBCs to obtain information on the selection process for IBC 
members, the process and content of committee deliberations, the level of 
public participation in committee activities, and the degree to which IBCs 
are concerned with safety training and health monitoring. A sample question- 
naire is enclosed. The second phase of this research will then obtain more 
detailed and qualitative information on committee functions and individual 
members' attitudes toward committee organization and actions, utilizing 
selective interviewing and case studies of individual IBCs. It is our hope 
that results will contribute to a rDNA research policy that takes into account 
the many aspects of committee structure and fuction which influence the 
[ 397 ] 
