191 
In addition, the committee in working through the various drafts of the 
guidelines has added other types of research which are to be deferred until 
the risks have been identified. As a lay person reading through the guide- 
lines, it seems to me that the position of the committee is least clear on 
the question of antibiotic resistance of all these types of experimentation. 
I would point in particular to pages 11 and 28 of the current version of the 
guidelines . 
On the procedural question, it seems to me that there are a number of 
resources available to the committee. The rich experience of NIH with insti- 
tutional review boards, the work of the National Commission for the Protec- 
tion of Human Subjects, and the work of the Secretary's Task Force on the 
Compensation of Research-Related Injuries. I would have three comments in 
the procedural area. 
First of all, the institutional biohazard committee: I would echo what 
Dr. Shaw has said about the composition and function of such committees. I 
think it should also be made more clear in the guidelines how this committee 
will relate to the institutional review boards. 
Then there is the ticklish question of the monitoring of research in 
progress. Will such a local committee have any functions analogous to the 
function of a radiation safety office? 
Secondly, it is stressed in the guidelines and also in the English 
Ashby Report that there should be epidemiological monitoring of all labora- 
tory workers. 
Thirdly, in the area of dealing with problems which may arise in the 
laboratory, I think that perhaps the committee should look into the question 
of what health insurance coverage would already be available for persons 
working in the lab who might be injured, and also the question of the com- 
pensation of persons injured through their participation in the lab. 
Finally, it seems to me that in addition to the kind of safety concern 
which we have been focusing on here during these 2 days, there may be the 
need for some kind of ongoing forum which would take up a different type of 
discussion, perhaps at annual intervals, looking at the progress in the 
field and also trying to look forward to the potential applications of this 
research and their possible impact on society. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Dr. Petersdorf's chair is empty. He has promised to 
send us his comments, which brings us to Mr. Hutt: 
MR. HUTT: I would like to premise my specific thoughts with three 
general comments. 
[ 332 ] 
