Page 3 - The Honorable Adlai E. Stevenson 
delay considering the subject matter. As to differences of 
opinion over interpretations of the Guidelines, we have confi- 
dence that the NIH staff has taken the appropriate action when 
asked for such interpretations. Complex interpretations are 
referred to the Recombinant DMA Molecule Program Advisory 
Committee and/or the executive Fecorcbinant DNA Advisory Committee 
prior to rendering an opinion. 
Part il 
6. "Why did NIH make no inquiry or investigation in this case 
until it had been widely publicized?" 
NIH's Office of Recombinant DNA Activities (ORDA) first 
learned on September 9, 1977, of an alleged violation of the 
Guidelines at UCSF, and that the research had been terminated 
and no imminent hazard currently existed. On September 9, 
Dr. William Gartland, Director, ORDA, called UCSF to inquire 
about the allegations. A meeting was arranged for September 29 
between NIH and UCSF personnel. Following the meeting, it was 
decided that there were sufficient grounds to support an official 
inquiry, and on October 11, 1977, a letter was sent to UCSF 
requesting a report of the incident. After response to the 
October 11 letter was received, NIH, on Decmeber 1, sent another 
letter to UCSF requesting a further report. 
7. "What procedures should be followed in the event of future 
allegations of violations?" 
The IBC is the proper body to conduct an investigation of 
such allegations. If the IBC investigation is unsatisfactory, 
or if time factors require quick action, NIH may intercede 
directly. 
8. "Will researchers be given adequate notice of these procedures?" 
HEW has had the long-standing authority to monitor the progress 
of its grants and has exercised this authority in the past. A 
restatement of this authority may be included in the revised 
(iUivUlines. 
MjMlj 
