247 
happy after lunch, since I will be here all day, to reply to any questions, 
and if necessary to also project at that time on the screen the diagrams 
that I have called to your attention. 
One final thing which I would like to take this opportunity to do is to 
express my gratitude to Dr. Kamely, who appeared here briefly. I have never 
met the lady before, but she has been very kind to me when, a few days ago, 
I have contacted Dr. Gartland's office and requested some clarifying infor- 
mation. I also wish to express ray gratitude to Ms. Butler from his office 
who supplied me with all the documents that I wanted, and thank Dr. McCarthy 
and his secretary Ms. Garfinkle for their prompt replies to all my inquiries, 
and giving me all the documents that I wanted. 
Thank you very much. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Are there any questions or comments for Dr. Bers? 
If not, thank you very much, Dr. Bers. We will go on to the next public 
witness. Mr. Thacher. 
MR. THACHER: Harking back to our previous discussion, with all due 
respect for Dr. Watson and his purposes in coming here, I think he has given 
us a good justification for public participation in this process. Most of 
us agree your letter should have been written, but to ever lower these Guide- 
lines, which is a reasonable and worthwhile and necessary purpose of this 
group, you must have the public involved. Then you won't be writing Guide- 
lines for political reasons to satisfy an imaginary public, you will be 
consulting members of the public themselves. You are educating the public 
about a very unusual And possibly revolutionary technique, and allowing the 
public to educate you. I think Dr. Suzuki's comments earlier today are 
relevant on this point. 
I would like to speak about the institutional biohazards committees, 
because I think they can be made stronger. Workers in recombinant DNA 
laboratories lack job protection or grievance procedures under NIH Guide- 
lines when reporting hazards or violations. These workers, junior members 
of the scientific staff, are not guaranteed positions on local biohazards 
committees. These are the people most exposed to hazardous work, and most 
aware of how well the Guidelines are followed. They should be able to call 
meetings of the institutional biohazards committee and appeal to the NIH 
if issues of safety are not resolved properly by the principal investigator 
in their own laboratory, or if they face the loss of a job due to their 
concern. I think such a committee should have local community membership 
guaranteed so that their opinions also will be heard. 
I think the changes that have been made or required of local institu- 
tions in appointing a biohazards officer and the wording of the description 
of the committee is very worthwhile, but I would like to see it be a strong 
committee, because I think it will be the most important element of seeing 
these Guidelines are followed honestly. 
[ 451 ] 
