20 
MR. HELMS: Yes, the comment I would make here is that — and I am not 
sure that this is an appropriate moment to get into it, because I think 
these are a separate set of discussions — but for the record I would say 
that Dr. Cape's problem is one that the State of New Jersey will have, 
because the State has recently said, through its Public Health Council, 
that it wants to implement the Guidelines as a matter of State law, yet we 
have no capacity in our Department of Health to review what would amount to 
the MUAs. So our relationship diplomatically to NIH is something which has 
to be worked out, because we will have to shepherd the corporations within 
our State as well as the academic institutions. So at some other point — I 
don't think I want to get off any further on that, but I note that. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Helms. I think that we will make 
every attempt to expand this portion, the discussion of this question to- 
morrow when we take up roles and responsibilities. 
Are there any other comments or questions from the Committee for Dr. 
Cape relative to other matters? 
I take it you have no particular comments to make on the definitions 
themselves? 
DR. CAPE: I simply want to point out that there is no question about 
the watershed significance, both of the definition section and of the 
novel versus non-novel section. I don't think I have anything to say that 
hasn't been said by others, but quite clearly the red-tape implications on 
whether there shall be a list of what is novel or a list of what is not 
novel, it must be obvious to everybody. Whichever way that goes, there 
will be either a tremendous impediment or lack of impediment to certain 
kinds of work. I think that is obvious, and I just wanted to state that 
much . 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you very much, Dr. Cape. 
I would like to call now upon Dr. Bernard Davis, who is Professor of 
Bacterial Physiology at Harvard. 
DR. DAVIS: Thank you, Dr. Fredrickson. 
I am here not as an official representative of the American Association 
of Microbiologists, but as one recommended by their responsible officials 
and on the basis of published statements. So I would say that what I am 
going to say, I believe is supported, if not in toto in large part, by a 
great many microbiologists. 
I would like to congratulate the Committee on the revisions, since 
I believe like many microbiologists that the dangers in recombinant DNA 
research of the kinds proposed have been enormously exaggerated. And on 
the basis of what we know today, I would think the following conclusions 
are reasonable. 
[ 224 ] 
