79 
MS. SIMRING: Might I point out that the Environmental Impact Statement 
is not a document alone, but is a process of development, and it is in the 
course of development of alternatives, assessment of risks, and so forth, 
and the other points that I mentioned, that even proposed revised Guidelines 
would be developed. There would be public input and other considerations 
along the way. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Right. Certainly an environmental impact assessment 
does need to precede a statement, and that is in process. This hearing is a 
part of that process. I think the other suggestions made by Ms. Simring are 
procedural matters, and we can refer to some of them again tomorrow. 
MS. SIMRING: Might I just add one last thing? The environmental assess- 
ment is, of course, a very different document from the Environmental Impact 
Statement. It requires much less detail, much less description of the actions 
involved . 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Are there other questions or comments for Ms. Simring? 
Thank you, Ms. Simring. 
There have been no questions submitted to us as we requested, in writing, 
from the audience, if members of the audience have them, so at this time we 
can proceed directly to the next section relative to biological containment. 
I would like that — oh, Dr. Davis, I am sorry. 
DR. DAVIS: I have a short comment to make on physical containment, if 
I may . 
DR. FREDRICKSON:. You did. I apologize to you. It wasn't put down on 
my agenda. I recognize Dr. Davis, returning as one of the invited witnesses 
with a comment on physical containment. 
DR. DAVIS: I would like to make a brief comment not on the content, 
but on some matters of language, in the section on physical containment, 
because I believe that insufficiently careful language in this area tends 
to perpetuate a kind of confusion that has plagued discussions of this whole 
subject from the start, and that is confusion between the reality of the 
hazard, whatever it may be, which is a fact of nature, and our assumptions 
about the nature of the hazard, which is what we write into our regulations. 
A fallacy occurs when a figure of speech is taken literally, and the 
figure of speech that is involved here is one that my high school English 
teacher would have described in terms that are peculiarly apt to the present 
di scuss ion--that is, identifying the container or the thing contained. 
Now, I think this is more than a quibble, because persistence in assum- 
ing that it is established that there is real risk and that we have any 
control over the facts of nature leads to statements such as the following 
in a news article on the subject in this last month's Trends in Biochemical 
[ 283 ] 
