UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL Department of Biochemistry 
AND LIFE SCIENCES 420 Henry Mall 
Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA 
Telephone 608/262-3026/262-3040 
September 11, 1978 
Dr. Donald Frederickson 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, MD 20014 
Dear Dr. Frederickson: 
The University of Wisconsin Biological Safety Committee discussed the 
proposed revised guidelines for recombinant DNA experimentation during our 
last meeting and moved that I should communicate to you its feelings about 
these proposals. I shall try to present the consensus of the meeting, however, 
time limitations prevent me from checking the details of this letter with the 
entire committee. 
(1) In general, the committee felt that the proposed revisions are a good first 
response to the conclusions arising from the Falmouth and Ascot meetings that 
recombinant DNA experimentation is not as potentially hazardous as originally 
perceived. We particularly welcome the exclusion of intre^specif ic experiments 
and the downgrading of other experiments. 
(2) Despite the obvious improvements, we are concerned that the proposed 
administrative procedures are excessive and disproportionate when measured 
against the perceived risks. We are particularly concerned in regards to our 
own functioning. Thus, as a result of a very worthwhile attempt to facilitate 
certification for the principle investigator, the local committees have been 
given added responsibilities. Furthermore, the administrative structure and 
functioning of the local committee are required to be more elaborate than 
necessary. Our concern about this stems from the fact that, unlike many other 
universities, our committee predates the recombinant DNA debate and has dealt 
extensively with problems arising from the handling of known pathogens and 
carcinogens. We have seen our recombinant DNA functions seriously erode our 
capability to deal with these other areas, and we feel that this is a mistake 
since they represent significant areas of concern. In addition, these responsi- 
bilities add an additional financial burden on our already limited resources. 
(3) The Committee does not feel negative about having a non-university member 
associated with it; however, it feels that dictating his or her membership is 
a political and not a scientific or safety matter and, as such, it is an 
inappropriate part of safety guidelines. 
[A-99] 
