5 
perhaps politically not feasible, to introduce even greater relaxation of the 
guidelines than that recommended. In addition, I would like to recommend the 
following minor changes. 
1) It seems to me important for the proposed guidelines to avoid meticulously 
any language that implies the reality of what are still entirely conjectural 
hazards. For example, in the middle column of page 409597 of the Federal register 
it is stated that "special laboratory design is used primarily in facilities 
in which experiments of moderate to high potential hazards are performed.” 
The appropriate language would be something like "experiments thought to have 
moderate to high potential hazards." Any carelessness of phraseology in this 
connection helps perpetuate public misconceptions about the reality of the 
hazards. 
2) The introduction should be strengthened, in order to present a more 
detailed justification for the proposed relaxations. The additional material might 
include the question of the novelty of the recombinants, the experimental 
demonstration of the integration of foreign DNA in bacteria, the data of Roy Curtiss 
on the negligible probability of escape of a plasmid from an EK2 strain, and the 
consensus reached by experts in enteric infections at Falmouth. 
3) I would recommend a replacement for the statement, in column 1 of page 
409597, that "the revised guidelines continue to be deliberately restrictive, 
with the intent of erring on the side of caution 0 " While I appreciate the intent 
of the statement, it makes me uncomfortable to see a scientific group deliberately 
introducing error. Perhaps one could say something like the following: "Because 
of persistence of widespread public anxiety, which arose before these principles 
[Appendix A — 170] 
