adopted, would interfere with testing abroad materials that had 
been discovered in the U.S. and would be undesirable. 
Mr. Rif kin was called upon to respond. He said that he was not 
surprised by the comments he had heard from the committee. He 
quoted from the NIH Guidelines: 
"The Guidelines are also applicable to 
projects done abroad if they are supported by 
NIH funds . " 
Mr. Rif kin said he felt there was a reason for such language and 
that it was to ensure that projects supported by the NIH would be 
held up to the same set of standards whether they were carried 
out in the U.S. or abroad. He used a hypothetical situation to 
state his case in which an institute was funded by the NIH to 
test a genetically engineered microorganism and receives millions 
of dollars of support from NIH for the basic research. The 
research institute, when it had solved the theoretical problems, 
decided that it could escape NIH purview by simply funding the 
end-stage experiment, i.e., release, privately abroad. In 
essence, the NIH would have paid millions of dollars for the 
research, but the institute could avoid the purview of the NIH 
Guidelines by supplying a minor sum of money to fund the final 
stage. He said, "what you are doing is sending a clear signal 
across this country and around the world that the guidelines that 
we adhere to in this country are not the guidelines that we 
expect other people to have to adhere to in other countries." 
Mr. Rogers said the reason he had used the language in the 
proposed amendment was that he felt the current language in the 
NIH Guidelines was too general, and he was trying to simply be 
more precise in his wording. He offered to amend the language to 
be more in line with the current language. However, he felt the 
phrase "in kind support" would have to be left for the NIH 
lawyers to couch in terms which would indicate that what was 
intended was to avoid the situation in which substantial in kind 
support is given in lieu of funds but the effect is the same as 
substantial funding. He said that concerns about reprints and 
small articles being sent abroad was something that was not 
intended. He said as far as the term "reasonably foreseeable" 
was concerned, it has been used in many regulations; and that in 
NEPA something that is "reasonably foreseeable" is considered 
within the scope of the project. Furthermore, he said that the 
word "project" is a word which is currently in the NIH Guidelines 
and should be clear to everyone. He said the amendment is really 
an attempt to create a parity between restrictions imposed upon 
researchers in the U.S., i.e., compliance with the NIH 
Guidelines, and those who carry out the final stages of their 
experiments abroad. 
Dr. Korwek said he appreciated why the amendment was being 
[ 50 ] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 13 
