27 
recombinant DNA research. Since the use of institutional review 
boards or institutional biohazard committees are routine in their 
research they also support this requirement. They endorse Federal 
preemption of State and local laws in order to insure uniformity of 
standards. They oppose specific restrictions on patent laws proposed 
in some legislation including any provision which would use patent 
restriction as a lever to insure compliance with the guidelines. There 
are other administrative provisions of proposed legislation which 
require modification in the view of the association but these should be 
easily remedied once all of the alternative provisions are placed in 
proper legal perspective. 
Dr. Johnson 
In further examination of industry views on this issue, testimony 
was obtained from Irving S. Johnson,’ Vice President, Eli Lilly Co. In 
general, Dr. Johnson’s statements endorse the views presented by Dr. 
Adams of PMA. As he pointed out, his company is engaged in research 
to evaluate potential applications for recombmant DNA technology. 
They are attempting to use the technique with antibiotic-producing 
organisms and are evaluating the possibility of producing medically 
useful hormones and other proteins. Dr. Johnson indicated that his 
firm has provided for public participation in many of the meetings 
held with regard to the guidelines including participation in the Na- 
tional Academy of Sciences’ public forum on tnis subject. The firm has 
made a special effort to provide information on its research in this 
area to the news media, via radio, television, newspapers and journals, 
and to its stockholders. Lilly also convened an international symposium 
to discuss the possibility of utilizing recombinant DNA tecnniques in 
insulin biosynthesis. He emphasized that the company has not made 
any secret of its interest in this area of research. 
Dr. Cape 
In his observations on industry reaction to the proposed regulation 
on DNA recombinant molecule research, Ronald E. Cape, President, 
Cetus Corporation, indicated that at the present time there is no gen- 
eral focal point for obtaining industry reactions — a desirable state of 
affairs from his own personal perspective. Each of the various indus- 
tries proposing any potential applications will have a different view 
regarding its estimates of needs and problems needing resolution for 
commercial application. From his own perspective as a representative 
of his company, Dr. Cape indicated that public inquiry into the issue 
was welcome. He noted that science is for the people, and although the 
heavy involvement of public funds has resulted in a natural desire for 
some return on this investment by the public, the organization of our 
society places the task of commercialization on industry. He empha- 
sized that his company would under no circumstances undertake any 
research in this area without complying with the guidelines even though 
there was no legal obligation to do so. He indicated that some sort of 
legislation requiring legal compliance with regulatory requirements in 
a uniform manner is probably desirable and inevitable. His reaction 
was that since commercial application of any research successes will 
be slow, so also should the development of the final form of any legis- 
lation be careful and thorough. His explanation for some of the reports 
[Appendix B — 76] 
