SEPARATE VIEWS ON H.R. 11192, RECOMBINANT DNA 
RESEARCH ACT BY HONORABLE JAMES M. COLLINS 
(TEX.) 
I recognize that within the scientific community there is a consensus 
that H.R. 11192, the Recombinant DNA Act, represents a reasonable 
interim measure of governmental control over activities which are 
perceived to be fraught with the prospect of much benefit and slight 
risk. At the same time, the endorsement of others who view legislation 
from the narrow perspective of its effect on scientific research cannot 
deflect proper scrutiny of certain unfavorable aspects of this legisla- 
tion. I shall endeavor to highlight briefly a few of my concerns respect- 
ing H.R. 11192. 
Section 105(d) of the bill attempts to authorize designees of 
the Secretary of HEW to conduct an inspection without obtain- 
ing a warrant from a neutral and detached judicial officer. I be- 
lieve that such a warrantless administrative search is in harmony 
with neither the essence of the F ourth Amendment nor a series of 
relevant Supreme Court decisions. In light of the flexible probable 
cause standard for an administrative search, together with the 
fact that a warrant proceeding is an ex parte one, it is difficult to 
conceive of why warrantless searches should be permitted as a 
matter of course. 
This bill stands for the proposition that government may regu- 
late private research even when no Federal monies are involved. 
An aspect of this that is particularly worrisome is that with 
respect to certain noncommercial activities not involving govern- 
ment money which would not be protected by exemption from the 
F reedom of Information Act. 
Upon considered reflection, I believe that it was undesirable to ef- 
fectively preempt, in section 106, local and State requirements over 
DNA activities merely because certain scientists fear the consequences 
flowing from possible judgments exercised by duly elected non-Federal 
officials. 
This interim bill, with it9 inevitable red tape and HEW bureaucracy 
that it will spawn, is likely an unwelcome harbinger of future in- 
creased F ederal regulation in this field. 
Though, as stated in the findings of the bill, “no hazard has been 
demonstrated,” the Federal Government is unjustifiably moving into 
this area. 
James M. Collins, 
Member of Congress {Texas). 
O 
( 44 ) 
[Appendix B — 174] 
