225 
putting some teeth into the enforcement provisions in these Guidelines. I 
think you really have to pay attention to strengthening the monitoring proce- 
dures and strengthening the representation on not only the institutional 
biohazards committees, but the Advisory Committee as well. 
Some other suggestions I would have, as far as the institutional bio- 
hazards committee's operations go, would be to require that at least a 
majority, if not all of the meetings of these biohazards committees, be 
open to the public. I think this would go a long way toward establishing 
more communication between the local community, between the workers in the 
labs, between other employees of the university not involved in lab work, 
and the principal investigators. I think mere minutes alone are not suffi- 
cient to adequately inform the public and other institutional employees of 
the extent and nature of local recombinant DNA research activities. I have 
seen some biohazards committees that do operate with some meetings ope., 
to the public, and I really can't say that it has hindered their effective- 
ness or hasn't been valuable to the public that did come in to watch the 
proceedings . 
Similarly, the Advisory Committee should have a little more access- 
ibility to the public in its operation. I think hearings such as these 
should be held in the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee as well as in the 
Director's Advisory Committee. Again, perhaps you could have some of the 
meetings in different locations throughout the country so that you don't 
always have people around Washington coming to these meetings — so that you 
get more of a feeling for what is going on in the rest of the Nation. I 
think, again, you should pay some witnesses from the public and from the 
relevant interest groups to participate in these hearings before any deci- 
sions are made. 
To develop the composition of the Advisory Committee, I think a pro- 
cedure similar to the one that was used for establishing the people at 
this meeting would be appropriate — that is, get nominations or suggestions 
from various groups such as industry or academic research, environmental 
groups and labor, and any other relevant disciplines, and then make the 
selection process based on these recommendations; and that way you have 
more of a tie into the people who are concerned about this research. 
I am very much concerned about the role of private industry in this 
research. I was at that Indiana conference where Roland Beers made the 
statement about using the revised Guidelines before they are really ap- 
proved, and really at this point, there is no way to do anything about that, 
because of course, there is no legislation. I would just like to submit to 
the — well, draw the Committee's attention to document 15 in the comments. It 
is a letter from Mark Lappe, who is in the California Department of Health, 
and he has the suggestion to make that at this time, recombinant DNA tech- 
nology — to declare it an invaluable national resource, too precious to be 
usurped and patented by private corporations, or to become the sole property 
of individuals. Each organism embodies novel knowledge, and as such belongs 
[ 429 ] 
