32 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Any other comments? If not, then we will move on 
to call Mr. Scott Thacher, a graduate student at Harvard. Oh, I am sorry, 
Dr. Ahmed. 
DR. AHMED: I have a procedural question about the question and comment 
you made. I am not very clear about this yet. Are we addressing at this 
morning's session the introductory part of this document? 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Yes, we are, Dr. Ahmed. 
DR. AHMED: And any question that pertains to procedures or public 
participation or risk-assessment would be deferred to different sessions 
during today and tomorrow? Is that correct? The question that Mr. Hutt, 
for example, just asked? 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Well, I think if they bear at all on the definition 
and how that is achieved and revised, I will leave that to your judgement. 
I am not sure exactly what you mean. Don't be hesitant to raise it, and 
then I can easily tell you whether I think that we ought to pursue it fur- 
ther now or not. Did you want to raise something? 
DR. AHMED: No, as we go along I was wondering at what time we should 
raise what questions. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: We are still on the introduction, the first page 
of the proposed revisions, and you have your agenda before you. We are 
still in that area. 
Mr. Thacher. 
MR. THACHER: Yes. In addition to being a graduate student in biochem- 
istry, I have been a member of Science for the People of Boston, which has 
been very interested with public involvement in this issue. Dr. Littlefield 
mentioned the nature of the committee which had written these Guidelines, 
and I would like to consider that part of the introduction and make some 
criticisms of their makeup. 
I believe that the NIH has not significantly broadened the Committee 
to write the Guidelines since it was first established. The diversity of 
opinion among biological scientists is not represented here. I think the 
NIH should request nominees for its Guidelines committee from, for example, 
the major groups at these hearings, industrial, environmental, agricultural, 
or labor union, and that the Committee should have representatives from 
EPA or NIOSH, and that it should hold open hearings on nominees for these 
positions. I think an important reason for this is that recombinant DNA 
research is being considered an important arm of national policy. The 
Presidential Advisor, Dr. Frank Press, commented that unemployment in the 
U.S. is perhaps due to stagnant technology, but today's advances in things 
such as recombinant DNA research may change this. And I think open hearings 
would have the function of allowing outsiders to question whether the 
[ 236 ] 
