-4- 
Moreover, plaintiff has offered no factual arguments 
concerning the experiment not already carefully considered 
by NIH. Although plaintiff has put one additional document 
before the Court in an attempt to bolster its exceedingly 
?eak showing of potential harm, that report was already 
Dnsidered in detail by NIH before the experiment. Attached 
the Supplemental Affidavit of Ruth Hubbard, dated 
J^jiuary 25, 1978, is a May 30, 1976, memorandum discussing 
th\ appropriateness of using enfeebled strains of E. coli 
in -ecombinant DNA research. But, as the Affidavit of 
Dr. talbot demonstrates, this report was analyzed in detail 
by NH prior to approval of the E. coli strain discussed 
in thi document. Attached as an exhibit to the Talbot 
Affidavit is the administrative record on approval of the 
EK2 sys;em which shows that plaintiff's concerns were 
consideied carefully by NIH and by independent expert 
advisors prior to approval. Thus, this report was thoroughly 
evaluatedby NIH prior to approval of the research at issue 
here . 
Accordingly, because plaintiff has failed to offer 
substantial new support for its motion for a preliminary 
injunction, he motion should be denied for the reasons 
explained in mr prior opposition to plaintiff's motion. 
Respectfully submitted, 
L. MARK WINE 
Land and Natural Resources Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 
(202) 739-2712 
S. 
GAR* B . RANDALL 
Lawd ana Natural Resources Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
(202) 739-3796 
[Appendix C — 224] 
