iv. a proposal referred to the GMAG will be examined for the detail of 
the proposed experimental protocol and of the physical facilities and 
safety measures at the laboratory concerned. After such considera- 
tion the GMAG would either: 
(a) advise that there would be no objection to the work proceeding 
as proposed ; or 
(b) advise that there would be no objection if specified precautions 
were adopted; or 
(e) advise that the experiment could not be undertaken safely. 
5.7 It will be important for rapid assessments to be made of category I and II 
protocols which are reported to the GMAG so that any inconsistencies in a 
local decision can be quickly corrected The GMAG will therefore need a 
scientific secretariat able to react quickly to protocols (consulting a member 
of the GMAG as necessary) and to deai directly with a laboratory if it seems 
necessary to question a local decision and to ask for delay pending consideration 
by the GMAG. Such cases may be rare but the possibility emphasises the 
need for speed and flexibility in the procedures for transmitting ads ice to 
laboratories. 
5.8 The protocols of experiments likely to fall into category III or IV will 
need more thorough consideration by the GMAG. possibly at a regular meeting 
of the whole group, taking into account: 
i. the nature of the experiment, with special reference to the biological 
factors referred to in Section 2; 
ii. the facilities at the laboratory concerned. An inspection may be 
necessary for this purpose in the early stages until a register of 
approved laboratories (paragraph 5.4 above) is established; 
iii. the experience, ability and training of the research workers and 
technicians and of the Biological Safety Officer; and 
iv. the arrangements for monitoring the health of staff. 
5.9 Formulation of advice on protocols for experiments in category III or IV 
may take some time and could in general proceed in parallel with a laboratory's 
preparations and planning But if a voluntary system is to maintain the 
conifidence and co-operation of the scientists concerned, it is important that the 
time taken should be kept to a minimum and should only rarely exceed three 
months. 
5.10 The efficacy of the advisory machinery recommended above will depend 
on the willingness of laboratories to accept and act on central advice. Our 
consultations with both academic and industrial scientists convince us that 
scientists will in fact welcome and be ready to comply with authoritative 
guidance from the centre. 
Statutory control 
5.11 On the basis in paragraph 5.10 above, the advisory system we describe 
would in practice amount to a system of control broadly comparable to that 
now operating through the DPAG for laboratories working with dangerous 
pathogens. Some of our witnesses urged that there was a need for specific 
statutory powers similar to those advocated by the Working Party on the 
Laboratory Use of Dangerous Pathogens (paragraph 5.2 above). We carefully 
considered these views and set out our conclusions below. 
IV-17 
[ 457 ] 
