-3- 
It is, of course, the responsibility of NIH to judge the scientific 
merit and social value of research proposals submitted for grants or con- 
tracts. No one questions the legality or propriety of conditioning the 
receipt of Federal money upon agreement not to engage in certain activities 
that may be dangerous. So long as all possible precautions are taken, it 
is also reasonable to waive a prohibition if that is necessary to determine 
whether the judgments on which it is based are correct. But it is quite 
another matter to make an individual exception to a general prohibition for 
a researcher who manages to persuade the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee 
and the Director of the surpassing importance of his or her work while 
perhaps refusing another researcher who fails to present as good a case. 
I question whether NIH officials have thought through the implications 
of this provision. I suggest that exceptions be made solely on the basis 
of need for risk assessment until there is sufficient evidence to justify 
removing an activity from the proscribed list. At the very least, the 
standard by which applications for exceptions will be judged should be 
clarified and the procedures for considering such apolications should be 
elaborated. NIH should immediately address the conditions under which 
exceptions to the ten liter limit should be granted. Judgments about the 
social benefits of research should not be left to the Recombinant DNA 
Advisory Committee, a largely technical group. 
[A-421] 
