POST HEARING DEVELOPMENTS 
Since the end of this series of hearings a number of significant 
events have occurred which' the' Members of Congress may wish to 
consider. A selection of the /most pertinent events are sumarized in 
this report with references to further discussions if more details 
are desired. 
A. Changes in Perception of Risk 
Some of the scientists who first called attention to the potential 
for risk in recombinant research have now changed their position. 
These changes in perception of risk have occurred for a number of 
reasons. First, there has been a period of about four years of additional 
research; second, other scientific disciplines have contributed ^knowl- 
edge from the fields of epidemiology and infectious disease; a major 
workshop was held to examine the history of pathogenic diseases; 
experience has been added from international research ; and work, both 
published and unpublished, has been completed in the laboratories 
of investigators in attempts to resolve some of their own ideas. It has 
been very difficult for these scientists to gain the same degree of accept- 
ance of their new perceptions as contrasted with their success in 
gaining public awareness when they discussed the potential for risk. 
A major problem has been a delay in gaining the usual peer review 
of these new experimental data, the absence of widespread dissemina- 
tion of these new opinions for evaluation by public interest groups, 
and, perhaps, a natural difficulty in alleviating anxieties once aroused 
in the mind of the public (see Washington Post, December 17, 1977, 
for Dr. James Watson’s comments on lifting the restrictions on recom- 
binant DNA research, Appendix). 
B. Revisions of the Guidelines 
The National Institutes of Health has proceeded to hold public 
hearings on proposed revisions of the Guidelines for Recombinant 
DNA Research. Although quite complicated, a number of proposals 
within these revisions reflect some of the thinking about the changing 
perceptions of risk. 
Some of these proposed, changes would reestablish a list of experiments 
which would. not be included in the guidelines if it could be determined 
that such experiments duplicate naturally occurring genetic events 
(this would eliminate approximately one-third of the current experi- 
ments now controlled by the guidelines) ; and permit the Director of 
the National Institutes of Health to grant (exemptions for prohibited 
experiments. Interesting comments on the proposed guidelines included 
the observation that Western European nations have much less 
concern about recombinant DNA research than is represented in the 
guidelines of the United States; there is significant criticism present 
(ll) 
[Appendix B — 62] 
