Dr. Fredrickson 
Page Two 
facilitate important research, leaving the problems of safety 
slightly blurred at the edge of the picture. Moreover, 
scientists may feel a little less anxiety than others about 
the need for stringent controls over themselves and their 
colleagues. Good faith efforts objectively to evaluate 
potential safety problems and benefits can hardly be expected 
to overcome such deeply held values or years of habit in 
approaching research problems from a particular perspective. 
It is obvious that the technical expertise which scientists 
can offer must be heard in any discussion about DNA research 
procedures. But it should not be permitted to drown out the 
equally important contributions of those who approach the dis- 
cussion from different perspectives. Dissent and disagreement 
are vital tools for ensuring that all aspects of a problem are 
seen and evaluated. If we are to provide a mechanism for fully- 
informed decision-making, we must see that the inherent biases 
and normative predilections of the scientific research community 
are balanced against those of others. If we really believe that 
all citizens should have the opportunity to influence decisions 
which may have a vital impact on their lives, the guidelines must 
be changed to provide for meaningful public participation at 
each stage of the decision-making process. 
I. INSTITUTIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE (IBC) 
The proposed revisions concentrate in the IBC a great deal 
of power and a great responsibility to make both technical and 
value judgments affecting all members of the community. 
Nevertheless, the Guidelines substitute meaningless tokenism 
for meaningful public composition and vague lipservice for sub- 
stantial guarantees of open proceedings. 
Composition 
The Guidelines regarding IBC composition require only that 
one member must be someone not affiliated with the recipient 
institution. They recommend, but do not require that one member 
be a non-doctoral person on the laboratory staff, and provide 
that no member may review "a project in which he or she has been 
or expected to be engaged or has a direct financial interest." 
These provisions are at best naive and unrealistic. In the 
first place, all of the problems of role and perspective which 
make it inadvisable to entrust non-technical policy considerations 
entirely to research scientists are exacerbated when the scientists 
[A-377] 
