4 
f 
is precisely because of the potential Og' recombinant DNA technology to 
lay the foundation for human genetic engineering that the present pro- 
cess should continue to be open and responsive to the public. I think 
that the composition of the Research Advisory Committee should remain 
as it now stands but that the work of the RAC should reflect a constantly 
evolving process of goal setting and policy making in which the public 
has full representation. 
Finally, I have three concerns which stem from an apparent adoption 
of a narrow view. First, the narrow definition of the types of exper- 
iments covered by the NIH guidelines exclude possibly hazardous work in 
other areas, for example, cell fusion and somatic cell hybrids. While 
it is understandably desirable to limit what is regulated as much as 
possible, the point of regulations at all is to protect workers and the 
environment from possible harm. I think that some consideration of 
action to provide information type guidelines for any work of a hazard- 
ous nature is in order. 
Second, testing recombinant organisms, hosts and vectors for path- 
ogenicity should be carried out for as broad a species range as feasible. 
Humans are not the only hosts of value. Ecosystems are delicately balanced 
and an accidental disruption may not be easily returned to normal. Cer- 
tainly there are limits to hou) much we can manipulate the environment, 
and it is wise to remember our limitations in situations similar to this. 
Lastly, use of recombinant DNA technology brings us to a new era in 
science, and it seems important to me to utilize all the tools available 
to us to make the best use of what we learn. New methods for risk and 
technology assessment offer new perspectives on the problem and could 
be of invaluable assistance as we try to accomplish our goals. 
Again, thank you for a very educational and enjoyable experience. 
Sincerely yours, 
Rosemary Crone Menard 
[Appendix A — 225] 
