206 
You may wonder why in the labor movement we have created a subcommit- 
tee, a rather unusual subcommittee, on this issue. I would like to remind 
you that universities and other research centers are places of employment, 
and despite what you may read in the Washington Post , we are still the largest 
single institution in this country. We represent people. 
Now, really what you have done in creating the Guidelines — and we 
compliment the initiative of NIH in this — is to begin the work that will 
have to be completed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
You have begun the work of creating a standard which, under that Act, is 
not a simple procedure or an environmental value or even a biological value. 
It is a participatory system of information and control which, by law, will 
be forthcoming. I have been assured that it will be forthcoming by the 
Associate Solicitor of the Department of Labor for OSHA and from the Assistant 
Secretary for OSHA, Dr. Bingham. 
Now, first of all, OSHA has some mixed jurisdictions in this field. 
Clearly, in the private sector, including NIH contractors and grantees, 
OSHA is a mandate. In the State institutions the situation is not clear, 
although State plans can make provisions for the standards; and if OSHA does 
have a standard, and I think they will, it will be almost automatic that those 
States that are in the system will also have to develop standards and those 
States outside of the system can develop a special-purpose standard and State 
plan. The Federal institutions are covered by Executive Order issued under 
OSHA. 
But the NIH Guidelines as interim measures, and as means of estab- 
lishing that recognition of hazard necessary to the implementation of the 
general duty clause of the Act, is welcome. 
In terms of our specific criticism, I realize that my time has to be 
truncated. The proposal I would like to express my concern about is the 
delegation of responsibility locally when the fact is than an inspectorate 
will be necessary, and NIH for the time being will have to provide that 
inspectorate. Now, I realize that NIH does not want to be a regulator. That 
is a role which they obviously find in distaste. It is felt by one reading 
the proposal. But it is not necessarily appropriate for NIH to have such a 
role, but I would think that NIH could help by using their contract mechanism 
to open this new technology to the most effective form of regulation at this 
point, and that is peer review of all work being done everywhere in this 
country. 
We would reject any concept of trade secret in this new technology. We 
feel it cannot be permitted. Public reports, site visits by risk review 
committees as proposed would, hopefully, be composed of reviewers chosen by 
NIH under existing procedures governing conflict of interest. Not, certainly, 
discouraging local committees. Indeed, they ought to be mandatory, but they 
must also meet Federal regulations for advisory committees and must include, 
by law, a representative of employees. 
[ 410 ] 
