Dr. Donald S. Frederic kson 
Page 2 
IV. Roles and responsibilities . I am in agreement with all of the changes proposed 
in this section as well. The expanded role of the IBC is a particularly important 
feature. While some critics may see this change as a step toward "deregulation," 
in fact it merely recognized a de_ facto situation: only the local committee can 
possibly Judge whether an investigator is competent and his containment adequate. 
National or state commissions with teams of inspectors would be ineffective and 
extraordinarily expensive. 
Permitting experiments to begin once they are approved by the IBC is an extremely 
important positive change. That will streamline the procedures immensely and remove 
delays that have unnecessarily held up good experiments in the past. 
I did not notice a procedure for appealing a decision of the local IBC against a 
project or against certification of a facility. 
Membership in the RAC should not include persons selected for their known views, 
either as cloners or dissenters from the majority. I should hope that committee 
members are chosen on the basis of their knowledge, integrity, and genuine concern 
for both safety and the traditional freedom of inquiry on which the scientific power 
of the United States is based. 
In summary, I am strongly in favor of the proposed revised guidelines. They 
provide adequate protection for the public and interfere much less with scientific 
progress than the 1976 version. I hope they make legislation affecting recombinant 
DNA research totally unnecessary. 
Sincerely yours. 
Robert Haselkom 
F.L. Pritzker Professor and Chairman 
RH/bpm 
