92 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology. 
Washington, D.C., May 26, 1978. 
Hon. Adlai E. Stevenson, III 
Chairman, Subcommittee on science, Technology, and Space, 
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 
Dear Senator Stevenson : On November 29, 1977, you wrote me with regard to 
a request made to the Department of Commerce by Dr. Frank Press, Director of 
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. This request was that 
the Office of Environmental Affairs in my office explore the feasibility of estab- 
lishing a program of “voluntary compliance and meaningful surveillance” in the 
area of recombinant DNA (RDNA) research carried out by the private sector. 
During the period between our receiving Dr. Press’ request and the present, 
the Office of Environmental Affairs has consulted at length with industrial rep- 
resentatives and with other Federal agencies. 
A preliminary plan was developed for Voluntary surveillance of a private 
sector RDNA program. Several troublesome issues were raised, most of which we 
believe could have been resolved. However, in the opinion of industry the pro- 
posed plan did not contain adequate protection for proprietary information and 
rights. For this reason, a voluntary surveillance program entirely satisfactory 
to both industry and Government is unlikely at this time. The Department, 
however, continues to maintain its contacts with the appropriate industrial 
representatives. 
You also asked for a summary of RDNA research activities in the private sec- 
tor. As nearly as can be determined, there are now four pharmaceutical manu- 
facturing companies carrying on this research in their own laboratories : 
Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan. 
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., Nutley, New Jersey. 
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana. 
Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Illinois. 
Two companies are suporting research in university laboratories, under con- 
tract : 
Miles Laboratories, Inc., Elkhart, Indiana. 
Smith, Kline and French Laboratories, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
Three companies, not in the pharmaceutical manufacturing business, are known 
to be engaged in RDNA research ; 
Cofus Corporation, Berkeley, California. 
General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York. 
Genentec Corporation, San Francisco, California. 
Other companies, however, are probably preparing to do RDNA research, by 
building containment facilities and hiring specialized personnel. The private 
sector picture, therefore, may change considerably over the next few months 
depending on establishment of standards of operation applied to private insti- 
tutions. 
1 shad keep you informed about further developments as they occur. 
Sincerely, 
Johdan J. Baruch. 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 
'Keip York, K.Y., December 2, 1977. 
lion. Adlai E. Stevenson, III. 
Chairman, Subcommittee bn Science, Technology, and Space, Committee on Com- 
merce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 
Dear Senator Stevenson : Enclosed is a memorandum I have prepared which 
considers existing statutory authority for regulating recombinant DNA. 
I have also enclosed a memorandum prepared for me by two patent attorneys, 
which describes the effect of disclosure on patent rights. Since NRDC believes 
that full disclosure by industry of its recombinant activities is essential to pub- 
lic decision-making about this new technology, we recommend that your com- 
mittee consider legislation which will resolve these problems. Specifically we 
recommend that the patent laws be amended to make it clear that disclosures 
made pursuant to a recombinant DNA regulatory statute do not jeopardize pat- 
ent rights. Also the State Department should be asked to seek similar protec- 
tion of foreign patent rights in international conventions governing patents. 
[Appendix B — 351] 
