3 
what hazards, if any, exist. The report of your Subcommittee cites this 
same need. Thus, we strongly endorse the authority in H.R. 11192 for 
exemptions to permit risk assessment projects, and for projects where 
there is no significant risk to health or the environment. In sum, 
developing scientific information on the risks or lack thereof in this 
research requires flexibility in regulation. H.R. 11192 and the proposed 
revisions of the NIH Guidelines provide this flexibility. 
Preemption 
Under the current NIH Guidelines an administrative framework sets 
out the respective responsibilities of the local institution and the 
13 : n.c 
National Institutes of Health (NIH). Over the past year and a half, the 
implementation of the Guidelines by participants in this research has 
proceeded well. Some experiments have had to be postponed and some 
scientific work delayed by the presence of the Guidelines and their 
xv 
implementation. But the spirit of cooperation between NIH and local 
institutions has remained good. 
The role for NIH has been to develop the standards and for the 
local institutions through their institutional biohazard committees 
(IBC) to review the research and monitor the activities in the labora- 
tory. Please note that as part of the revision process we are considering 
substituting the term "Biosafety committee" for the term "Biohazard 
committee" throughout the Guidelines. But for the present, I will 
continue to use the term Institutional Biohazard Committee. 
[Appendix B — 179] 
