199 
I think that the composition of the committee concerned with this on- 
going review, which it seems is assumed to be the Program Advisory Commit- 
tee, should be reconsidered, anyway. I think that most of the comments that 
I have heard in criticism of the composition of the committee have been in 
the direction that people seem to think that there are too many scientists 
actively involved and concerned in the research. I think that situation 
should be remedied, not necessarily because the work of the committee has 
been inadequate as a result of that, but simply because this question is 
going to be raised again and again and again, and I think that for the sake 
of everyone's conscience and comfort, this question should be dealt with as 
soon as possible. 
I think that Dr. Brown's suggestion that expert testimony be used in 
decisions is a good one in that it allows for a possible separation of ex- 
pertise from the body of the committee, and allows that the expertise that 
is currently represented on the committee can still be available for its 
use. 
My main concern is not so much the details of the guidelines, which I 
assume are going to change over the next few years, although these are the 
true substance of what we are discussing here, but the process of their on- 
going evolution, and I think that the mechanism by which this evolution will 
occur is probably the most important — devising these mechanisms is the most 
important task ahead of us at this point. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you. 
Dr. Dodds? 
DR. DODDS: I believe that we are fast approaching the expiration of 
viable comment concerning the pitfalls of the committee such as this, and 
many good things have been said. I agree with Dr. Melnick in his council. 
I agree with Ms. Haygood on her requirement for appellate mechanisms. I 
agree with Mr. Hutt on containment. 
I would only caution the absolute necessity for the maintenance of the 
scientific community, to keep the responsibility for moving forward. In my 
own profession I have seen what mandated rules can do with respect to qual- 
ity assessment, which is a biohazard, if you really want to bring it down to 
the bottom line. It relates to people, and in the PSRO area we have seen an 
absolute lack of responsibility — well, I shouldn't say absolute lack, but 
there has been close to an absolute lack of responsibility in this area with 
local committees that function autogenously and without any real rule from 
those who know what can be expected or what is to be expected. Believe me, 
the importance of the scientific committee being responsible can't be 
overstated. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Mr. Ladwig? 
[ 340 ] 
