23 
MR. HUTT: One could say, however, that we are deliberately being 
caut ious . 
DR. DAVIS: Yes, that I would accept. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Dr. Sinsheimer? 
DR. SINSHEIMER: Bernie, I don't want to start a debate with you again, 
but I just want to say that I think the nice experiment by Chang and Cohen, 
the significance of this, I think, is being exaggerated in this discussion. 
I could expand on that if you want, but not in 30 seconds. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: I think we probably shouldn't expand on it now, but 
we can if we have time later, Bob. 
Any other comments or questions? 
I have one question for you, Dr. Davis, which arose from your comments 
about the phrase "err on the side." You also made some reference to SV40. 
Was this because you are objecting to the footnote, number one? I am now 
referring to the revisions in the Federal Register , page 49596, column 
three, at the bottom. I raise this question because a number of commentators 
have raised it. We will come back to the problem of viral genomes time and 
time again in this discussion, but was that what you had reference to? 
DR. DAVIS: No, I wasn't thinking about it in that particular connection 
I was simply mentioning SV40 as an example of a virus that is grown in very 
large amounts, and is considered not excessively hazardous to handle in 
that way. I am suggesting that that is actually more hazardous than the 
alternative . 
DR. FREDRICKSON: I see. 
Are there any other questions for Dr. Davis? Thank you, Dr. Davis. 
The next witness will be Ms. Nancy Pfund, who is from the Sierra Club. 
MS. PFUND: I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to 
testify today. I think public hearings like these ought to be increased. 
My one objection at this point is that this hearing is a little too late, 
and its scope is--well, it represents too little effort to involve the 
public. What has happened is that the Guidelines have already been revised 
downward. Why is this? 
The introduction to the Guidelines states that the Advisory Committee 
based its revisions on new data which diminished the estimate of risk asso- 
ciated with recombinant DNA in E. col i K-12 systems. What are these data? 
Where are they published? Why have they not been widely circulated and 
subjected to comprehensive review by experts and the public alike? These 
data are not referenced in the Guidelines. The references that are contained 
[ 227 ] 
