9 
Recently, the Supreme Court has summarized the 
limited role of the courts in determining whether agencies 
have complied with NEPA: 
Neither the statute nor its legislative 
history contemplates that a court should 
substitute its judgment for that of the 
agency as to the environmental consequences 
of its actions. [Citation omitted.] (jhe 
only role for a court is to insure that the 
agency has taken a 'hard look' at environ- 
mental consequences; it cannot 'interject 
itself within the area of discretion of the 
executive as to the choice of the action 
to be taken' T\ Natural Resources Defense , 
/ Council v. Morton , 458 F. 2d 827 , 838 , I?8^ 
X U.S. Apo. D.C. 5, 16 (1972). 
(x cjXO 
Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 410 .n. 21 (1976)/. In 
Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States , 166 U.S. 
App. D.C. 416, 418, 510 F.2d 796, 798 (1975), the court elaborated 
on the test of adequacy: 
[NEPA's] language requires description of 
reasonably foreseeable effects. A 'rule 
of reason' is used to ascertain those effects 
anticipated. ' [Citation omitted. ] The 
'detailed statement' is required as a basis 
for intelligent balancing of the effect on 
the environment with the economic and technical 
factors. [Citation omitted.] 
The EIS does represent a "hard look" by NIH at 
recombinant DNA research performed in accordance with its 
Guidelines. After describing in detail the background of the 
recombinant DNA experimental process, as well as discussing 
the issues raised by recombinant DNA research, the EIS describes 
in detail its action and the alternatives to it. The EIS 
then discusses in detail the possible environmental impact not 
only of the NIH Guidelines, but also of recombinant DNA research 
conducted in accordance with the Guidelines. 
Because the experiment complies with the NIH 
Guidelines and because compliance with the Guidelines insures 
[Appendix C — 117] 
