6 
the laboratory. Would the Committee object to the criteria 
being modified and the language amended to read as follows. 
"low potential for survival outside the laboratory"? 
• It was urged that the requirement for independent confirmation 
of relevant phenotypic and genotypic traits for certification 
at the HV3 level should also be applied at the HV2 level. In 
light of this suggestion, the question arises why the confirma- 
tion is required at the HV3 level. Is this done to ensure 
the credibility of the investigator's results or to determine 
the range of safety? It has been pointed out that the working 
groups reporting to your Committee who review the data are, 
in effect, conducting an independent check for the HV2 level. 
If so, this check would seem to be sufficient, and indeed, 
a requirement for an independent check at either the second 
or third levels would be unnecessary. I would appreciate 
your views on this subject. 
• There have been a number of suggestions that NIH provide 
a means to accept requests from the private sector to (a) 
interpret the Guidelines, (b) certify new host-vector systems, 
and (c) provide for exemptions from the Guidelines. Your 
comments on the NIH providing such services would be much 
appreciated. I would be especially interested in your views 
on the Committee functions for certification of new host-vector 
systems where proprietary or patent information might be 
involved. Would the Committee be willing to accept such a 
[ 507 ] 
