-3- 
challenged by another party, and misrepresentations are also subject to 
criminal penalties under United States law. 
3 . Exemptions from Adherence to the NIH Guidelines for Proprietary 
Information on Patent Rights 
Dr. Ancker-Johnson stated that the inventor defines that which is pro- 
prietary or patentable, but the Patent Office would review such statements 
in light of the NIH standards. The initial determination for exemption 
would, however, lie with the inventor. Dr. Fredrickson expressed concern 
that, in light of NIH standards and procedures promoting maximum disclosure, 
these exemptions may significantly limit the applicability of the NIH 
Guidelines . 
Committee Advice 
In stating their views on the Order, Committee members agreed that their 
views relate only to the health and safety aspects of the Order. 
The majority of Committee members were favorably disposed to the reinstate- 
ment of the Commerce Department Order because: (1) accelerated processing 
involves no change in patent procedures that appears to be inimical to the 
public good; (2) it motivates compliance with the safety standards of the 
NIH Guidelines by non-governmentally funded domestic investigators during 
the period while national legislation is being considered; and (3) it 
encourages compliance with a set of recognized safety standards by foreign 
investigators who may not yet be subject to comparable standards in their 
own countries. Representatives from the following agencies so recommended: 
VA, NRC, NSF, NASA, ERDA, FDA, CDC, DOD, Commerce, and USDA. 
[ 349 ] 
