75 
DR. SCHWARTZ: Well, my personal belief, but I am far from the consen- 
sus in this room, I think, is that there should be isolation of laboratories 
to begin with. 
MR. HUTT: For all experimentation? 
DR. SCHWARTZ: For the time being until a more believable risk-assessment 
is available. 
MR. HUTT: And that includes everything from — in other words, every- 
thing should be lumped into P4? You would apply P4 across the board? I am 
just trying to understand where you come out as a result of your concern 
about lack of risk-assessment. 
DR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I would make the division that has been suggested 
about experiments that are considered by a consensus to be truly innocuous 
and eliminate those, but that would require a consensus and a more open 
discussion than I think has yet taken place. 
Now, if there is a general consensus that an experiment is basically 
innocuous and it can be proven so, then I would eliminate that from the P4 . 
But I find it very hard to assess the risk to distinguish between P3 and P4 , 
I must admit. 
MR. HUTT: How about between P2 and P4 at the moment. 
% 
DR. SCHWARTZ: I am worried about that, too. I think the record — what 
I am going to try to bring up in the next period — the record of reliability 
assessment is horrendous. 
MR. HUTT: So basically you are saying everything should be under P4 
except perhaps those that are exempt totally. 
DR. SCHWARTZ: That is my feeling, yes. 
MR. HUTT: Thank you. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Mr. Helms. 
MR. HELMS: Dr. Fredrickson, will this witness appear again in the bio- 
logical containment section? I have some questions, but I think perhaps I 
could save them until then. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Yes, he is scheduled to reappear. 
MR. HELMS: I will do that, in the interest of lunch. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Are there any other comments or questions? 
[ 279 ] 
