representatives from the areas of city and county governments, science law, 
and epidemiological medicine. Similar knowledgeable and broad-based 
representation is characteristic of analogous committees at other universities 
with which I am familiar, indicating that institutions and their scientists 
are acting in a highly responsive way to the need to safeguard communities while 
at the same time allowing valuable recombinant DNA research to continue. The 
responsible records of local committees in implementing the current Guidelines 
argues well for their abilities to assume increased authority under the Revised 
Guidelines in a manner that will continue to assure safety from potential bio- 
hazards for those living in their communities. 
Since members of my department were interested in carrying out research 
using recombinant DNA techniques, I was asked by my institution to form a 
special committee to evaluate the need and feasibility for a P3-level Physical 
Containment Facility. The need and feasibility for a facility was soon 
established and a successful proposal for matching funds was made to NIH. A 
three-member users committee was proposed to oversee the actual day-to-day 
operation of the facility, with this committee to be closely monitored by 
the institutional committee. Again, my interactions with the institutional 
committee in my endeavor to obtain a P3 facility reinforced my strong belief 
that such committees will continue to responsibly carry out their assigned 
duties under the Revised Guidelines. 
I have the pleasure of knowing many of the scientists who are carrying 
on highly significant research projects using recombinant DNA techniques, some 
of whom have been involved in the formation of the original Guidelines and the 
current proposed Revised Guidelines. I count several of these investigators 
as good friends. As a group, they are highly motivated, highly intelligent, 
and intellectually honest scientists who are respected in their communities. 
[ 408 ] 
