28 7 
I think, similarly, Ms. Menard mentioned the training area, and I also 
would put the medical surveillance area into this category. It mentions that 
we should have it and that we should have certification of training. But 
what do we mean by certification of training? In fact, we had a discussion, 
a considerable discussion — I consider, by the way, training to be one of 
the high priorities of implementation of the Guidelines on a large university 
campus. But how do you go about that training? How to you certify it? Sir 
John Kendrew, I think, made some comment about that, assuring that the people 
who get into that laboratory have had a course. We have done some of that 
with the radiation protection, using our learning centers and videotapes and 
examinations that are given to the people before they can have users certif- 
icates to use radioisotopes on campus. I think that is important. If it is 
not done as appendices to the Guidelines, if information and guidance is not 
presented there, then I think another way that could be of great help would 
be, for example, for Dr. Gartland's office to really go and increase their 
level of activity of exchange of information among biohazard committees. I 
feel sometimes that our institutional biohazard committee has operated some- 
what in a vacuum of knowledge from what is happening at other institutions. 
We do get a fair amount of information from the literature, but I think an 
ongoing exchange of how do we evaluate specific kinds of hazards. . . . 
And I think your technical newsletter might make a very strong effort 
to actually go out and seek that information from institutions. For example, 
we have been spending the last 18 months in developing a very detailed policy 
and procedures manual. I don't know how many other institutions are doing 
the same thing, and I have gotten some from other institutions, but maybe 
there could be a lot of sharing of information. 
I think similarly, then, that that kind of theme could carry through to 
the biological safety officer concept. I think what one might do with the 
section on institutional relationships — I believe it is Section IV--is to 
develop, like you had an Appendix D for the containment section, if you could 
develop an Appendix E for that section, giving some suggested guidelines-- 
For example, it has been mentioned, the concern about how often should 
laboratories be inspected. If in that medical surveillance question, and 
the inspection question and so forth, if there might be an Appendix E that 
would give some further guidance in that area, I think that would be a great 
deal of help in making these procedures more uniform. Also, I think, in 
increasing to a great extent the uniformity from institution to institution. 
The other thing I would comment on, I would be very complimentary to the 
University of Washington and their biohazard committee in terms of the public 
exposure. I think in some institutions, possibly, it is not that the public 
exposure has not been there because there has been a conscious attempt not 
to have it, but rather there maybe hasn't been as much guidance as there 
should on how to do it. And I think there again the Guidelines might be 
strengthened as to how to do that. I guess that would be the main theme of 
my comments. I have a number of other smaller, less consequential comments 
which I will put in the form of written communication, Dr. Fredrickson. 
[ 491 ] 
