32 
DNA, they can respond, and they can respond intelligently.” Further- 
more, there are many Federal regulatory programs which rely on 
States to promulgate regulations. “Somehow in each of these we man- 
aged to deal with diversity. I see no particular reason why recom- 
binant DNA should pose a greater problem.” 
The controversy represented by these opposing points of view has 
seriously impeded congressional action on recombinant DNA legis- 
lation and therefore merits careful evaluation. Assuming that there is 
a strong Federal interest in regulating effectively all recombitant 
DNA activities in order to protect public health and the environment, 
the subcommittee has tried to assess whether stricter State and local 
regulation would seriously impede scientific research and development 
of beneficial uses of the technology, whether States and localities have 
demonstrated a strong desire to regulate recombinant DNA activities, 
whether they have special competence that would be useful, and 
whether there is a compelling legal or constitutional argument for 
permitting State and local governments to regulate as they see fit. 
The subcommittee has found that while public controversy has 
flourished in several academic communities and a few States, it has 
generally not resulted in the passage of legislation more restrictive 
than the NIH guidelines. Academic and industrial scientists appear 
to be concerned primarily about proposals to prohibit all recombinant 
DNA research, prevent the construction of higher containment re- 
search facilities, or, on the other hand, restrict all experiments to high 
containment laboratories. Joseph Grady of Upjohn Co. cited unsuc- 
cessful efforts in Cambridge, Mass., to stop construction of a P3 labo- 
ratory, while Bruce Levin of the University of Massachusetts referred 
to a proposal, since rejected by the New Jersey Department of Health, 
to impose EK2, P3 requirements for all experiments. He commented, 
“I don’t think that is justified * * *. I think that would be an in- 
hibition on scientific freedom of inquiry.” 
According to other witnesses, the prospects of such actions by State 
or local governments have become increasingly remote. Paul Berg of 
Stanford predicted that “* * * the worst that can happen is that a 
community will say that we want everything to be done under the 
NTH guidelines.” Cetus Corp. president, Ronald Cape, suggested that 
“* * * some of the pressure for State and local regulation has been 
motivated in part by a desire to goad "Washington into action, partic- 
ularly since it was felt that the apparent failure of the NIH guide- 
lines to cover industry represented a real problem.” And the president 
of the PMA agreed that there would “not * * * be a lot of enthusiasm 
in local communities to proceed” once Congress acts to regulate all 
recombinant research. 
Recently passed or proposed citv ordinances and State legislation 
tend to confirm these impressions. In requiring all recombinant DNA 
experiments to be “undertaken only in strict conformity with the 
guidelines of the National Institutes of Health * * the Berkeley, 
Calif.. City Council noted that “the guidelines are only applicable to 
NIH-funded research, while many non-NIH-funded private and pub- 
lic research projects continue to be unregulated.” (Ordnance No. 
5070-NS, October 21, 1977.) Shortly after the subcommittee’s hear- 
ings, the New Jersey Public Health Council unanimously adopted a 
[Appendix B — 291] 
