UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
FERDINAND J. MACK, Jr., ) 
an infant, ) 
) 
Plaintiff, ) 
) 
v. ) Civil Action No. 
) 
JOSEPH A. CALIFANO , Jr., ) 
et al. , ) 
) 
Defendants. ) 
) 
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S 
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM 
Plaintiff has submitted supplemental affidavits from 
four of its five previous affiants which merely indicate that 
their previous affidavits still stand. 'But, as previously 
indicated, all that those prior affidavits establish at best 
is a purely speculative possibility that the stringent and 
excessively conservative physical and biological containment 
requirements of the NIH Guidelines will somehow prove ineffec- 
tive. Plaintiff's supplemental memorandum in support of its 
motion for a preliminary injunction similarly adds nothing 
new. As shown in our previous memorandum in opposition to 
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and further 
demonstrated below, plaintiff's arguments and affidavits are 
legally and factually insufficient to justify a preliminary 
77-916 
injunction. 
None of plaintiff's affidavits establishes that the 
purported harm from the experiment is at all likely to actually 
occur. This is not surprising given the extraordinary measures 
employed by the NIH Guidelines to insure that no harm flows 
from the experiment. And the Nutter Affidavit shows that 
the experiment at isslie here poses no added risks to humans 
or to the environment. Plaintiff's attempt to show that the 
experiment here is somehow special and requires further NEPA 
analysis is unsupported by the record. Rather, the record 
shows that NIH has carefully considered the potential risks oi 
this experiment and all experiments conducted under the Guide- 
lines to assure no risk of harm to human health or to the 
environment . 
[Appendix C — 221] 
