6 
Policy Implications of DXA Recombinant Molecule Research on 
March 29, 30, 31; April 27, 28; May 3, 4, 5, 25, 26; September 7 and 8, 
1977. These hearings were preceded by six years of committee involve- 
ment with issues related to genetic research and engineering, during 
which three reports on the subject were issued. 
On May 3, 1977 Chairman Olin E. Teague requested sequential re- 
ferral of whatever bill on the subject of recombinant DXA research 
might be reported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce. He also requested that any bills on this subject which come 
to the House from the Senate be dually referred to this committee. 
The reasons for these requests were as follows: 
(1) Rule X, Cl. (1) (r) of the House of Representatives gives the 
Committee on Science and Technology specific jurisdiction of “scien- 
tific research and development.” Cl. 2(b) and Cl. 3(f) give this com- 
mittee general and special oversight of “all laws, programs and Gov- 
ernment activities” involving research and development, other than 
military R. & D. 
(2) Recombinant DXA research is basic research. It stretches across 
the entire spectrum of fundamental biological science — plant and ani- 
mal as well as human — and is not merely biomedical research. Substan- 
tively, therefore, recombinant RXA research is very much a part of 
the committee’s responsibility. 
(3) A vital element of national science policy is at issue — freedom 
of scientific inquiry. Xational science policy lies within purview of 
the Committee on Science and Technology. 
(4) As a further matter of science policy, the government’s action 
with regard to restricting recombinant DXA research will become a 
precedent which, if not carefully monitored, could spread to other 
areas of research. 
On March 24, 1978, H.R. 11192 was reported by the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce and sequentially referred to the 
Committee on Science and Technology for a period ending not later 
than April 21, 1978, for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
the j urisdiction of the committee. 
The Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology held hear- 
ings on H.R. 11192 on April 11. The bill was reported by the subcom- 
mittee dn April 13. 
On April 18 the full Committee on Science and Technology consid- 
ered and ordered reported the bill H.R, 11192 as amended in subcom- 
mittee by a vote of 24 ayes and 4 nays. 
NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION 
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, in Part I of 
this report which accompanies H.R. 11192, presents a detailed explana- 
tion 6f the need for this legislation. The Committee on Science and 
Technology is not here attempting to duplicate that justification or, 
for that matter, necessarily agree with it. 
As noted above the committee requested sequential referral because 
of its specific jurisdiction of “scientific research and development” and 
national science policy. Thus committee actions on the bill were limited 
[Appendix B — 194] 
