222 
At the same time, there is probably still a need for national inspec- 
tors to go in much more periodically and look at what is happening in those 
laboratorie s . 
In terms of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, they should have 
the responsibility in the future to give us a detailed rationale for each 
recommendation they make. I think the conversation of the last day has 
shown us that we don't really have a full grasp, from the documents they 
have given us so far of why they did what they did. That is true for 
people who feel they were too lenient or too restrictive. We just don't 
know what they did, and I think that these Guidelines should not be revised 
until we have a much better basis on which to make those decisions. 
In terms of their membership, these are public decisions, they are not 
scientific decisions. The membership of the Advisory Committee should be a 
majority of people representing the public — people from law, government, with 
experience in enforcement and making these kinds of public policy decisions. 
The remainder can be people who are knowledgeable in recombinant DNA research, 
but more importantly, with expertise in physical and biological containment, 
with expertise in infectious diseases and the other associated realms of 
biohazard. They could call in scientists with more expertise as staff. The 
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects, whenever it deals 
with an issue, calls out for a large number of papers that they hope will 
represent the viewpoint, the range of expertise on a particular subject. 
There is no reason why we cannot have public representatives being the 
majority of this committee, and have the scientific work done by outside 
consultants or by staff given to the members to make a decision. 
At the same time, I think there have to be public hearings of the Guide- 
lines committee when they are revising guidelines, and we should pay people 
to fly in and make comments the same way we have done now. It is hard for an 
advisory committee like yourselves to react to things that are already down 
on paper. That is a hard thing to do. 
Turning to NIH's ability to enforce, the Office of Recombinant DNA 
Activities, I am told, has two full-time people. Yet the things they are 
responsible for are outrageous. They are responsible for reviewing all 
Memorandums of Understanding and Agreement, responsible for reviewing the 
membership of all institutional biohazard committees. They have to serve as 
the ombudspeople between the investigators and the National Institutes of 
Health whenever there are any questions. They are the staff of the Recom- 
binant DNA Advisory Committee, and they answer the phones, and believe me, 
they rarely get off the phone, because I know, I call them up and they are 
always busy. 
(Laughter . ) 
So I don't know how they have the time to do the things they are sup- 
posed to do. Dr. Gartland has told me that they get all the IBC memberships, 
[ 426 ] 
