200 
creating its own demands in terms of papers, meetings, and other bureaucratic 
act ivi t ies . 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Ms. King. 
MS. KING: I would like to say that I am somewhat in sympathy but some- 
what dismayed at the remarks that were just made. It seems to me that when 
one has a monitoring system that has to rest on what happens in a local 
institution, and you have a public that is concerned about that research, then 
one does have a problem. And either we should seriously consider doing 
monitoring at some other level than at local institutional levels, or we 
should seriously talk about funding or helping institutions pay for some of 
the requirements that we impose upon them. I am not so sure I join with all 
these sentiments about the flexibility of the DNA regulations, but I am 
somewhat in sympathy with the costs that regulations in this and other areas 
would impose. It would seem to me that one of the things that we might 
consider down the road is — I know another commission that I am on is con- 
sidering this, and that is the Federal Government picking up some of the costs 
through its grant program, of some of the regulations that it is imposing. 
<* 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Ms. King is a member of the National Commission for 
the Protection of Human Subjects. 
PROFESSOR ROSENBLITH: If I may just reply for a minute to Ms. King, I 
don't think that she and I are that far apart. I think by what we have done 
locally--I mean, in our own institution we have recognized our public re- 
sponsibility and our accountability, but the problem is that to build this 
into a university is a very tough job, both financially and also in terms of 
structure . 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Dr. Gustafson. 
DR. GUSTAFSON: I agree that there are the cost problems, and as one 
who sits on these committees, time problems, but I think there is another 
issue at stake, and that is that there are some principles by which we would 
say we would rather have a range of discretionary judgment safeguarded in the 
Guidelines, assuming accountable and responsible local people. Is that our 
disposition, or is our disposition to have clear, precise language which 
covers all possibilities. I think that is not merely a matter of practical 
consideration in terms of institutional costs, although that is a factor. But 
it seems to me that is a really fundamental matter that a committee of this 
sort has to come to some judgment on, because you go down one street and you 
are going to hear from one part of the public. You go down the other street 
and you are going to hear from the other part of the public. I don't worry 
about that so much. 
I think we have really got to decide, and there are various factors and 
arguments that go into this, but we really have to decide whether we believe 
in a range of discretionary judgment on the part of institutions and responsi- 
ble parties, or whether we want precise and primarily a juridical relationship 
to institutions rather than a guideline relationship. 
[ 404 ] 
