3 
In light of the competative pressures under which most investigators 
work, significantly more stringent standards than those applied by NIH 
could very effectively hobble any research project just as a more len- 
ient interpretation could give a significant advantage to a researcher. 
Becauste of the proposal in the revised guidelines to allow IBCs to lower 
containment levels one step (physical or biological) under certain cond- 
itions, the problem of variability in application of the guidelines be- 
comes even more serious. I believe that more specific directions from 
NIH to the IBCs along with establishing a communication network among 
IBCs are two viable approaches to help alleviate the problem. In any 
case, more and better communication and information exchange between IBCs 
would allow them to help each other by exchanging ideas on prodeedure, 
technical materials and references, and training and safety information 
and should be encouraged and facilitated by NIH. 
Prior to any further revisions of the NIH guidelines, I would like 
to suggest that the IBCs be polled via a questionaire to determine the 
most common problems they encounter in discharging their duties as well 
as asking for suggestions on how to sitnplify their task, make it more 
meaningful or less frustrating. 
My concerns as a private citizen are several-fold. Perhaps fore- 
most is that of the role of the public in the decision making process. 
To my knowledge, recombinant DNA is the first technology in which the 
public has been involved from the very early stages. Initial public 
concern was largly that the technique would be used to accidently or 
deliberately create a "super bug" which could cause an epidemic. I 
perceive public concern in the Seattle area to no longer be focused 
on the epidemic possibility but to have turned to the use of recombin- 
ant DNA technology to generate sufficient information to make human 
genetic engineering a reality. I believe that public involvement now 
means a more educated public who will be infinitely more capable of 
dealing with the obvious risks and benefits of human genetic engineer- 
ing. By dealing with the risks and benefits of human genetic engineer- 
ing, I do not mean accepting both without question, rather I mean par- 
ticipating fully in the decision making process by being involved in 
goal setting, policy making and general allocation of funds. I believe 
the same rcle should be open t<3 members of the public now, and that it 
[Appendix A — 224] 
