9 . 
where potential danger does not e xist , i.e. only with routine studies with 
organisms calling for nothing more then basically accepted microbiological 
practices. Anything of 'potentially' hazardous or hazardous nature should be 
switched to a minimal level of real physical containment, i.e. where permanent 
biohazard signs are posted, doors are locked to prevent unauthorized entrance, 
aerosols are properly dealt with, labs are under negative pressure, etc.. etc.. 
This would be minimal P3 level containment as noted in the 'Woods Hole Guidelines'. 
We consider the P3 ('moderate') level of containment to be the first 
and minimal level of containment for any experiment of 'potentially' hazardous 
or hazardous nature. Respite its being more stringent then PI & P2 we still see 
in it the potential for the human attributes described above to come into play. 
For this reason we feel its definition as found in the 'Woods Hole Guidelines' 
makes it quite deceptive, and over-rated in terms of actual safety. In addition, 
the 2nd paragraph in this section of the 'Woods Hole Guidelines' (see page 6, 
"P3-level research may be conducted in "), essentially is an option 
for avoiding the stricter and more reasonable regulations set down in the 
previous paragraph describing P3 in the Guidelines. 
This 'loophole' must be eliminated if P3 containment is to be meaningful. 
The stature of P3 containment as the most minimal real level of physical 
containment for any recombinant studies should be understandable in light of our 
strong opinion as to the inadequacies of the complementing EK biological 
containment system. 
P4-level containment, as defined in the 'Woods Hole Guidelines', should 
in our opinion provide the security necessary for experiments involving 'highly 
infectious and or hazardous materials', though as described above we feel that many 
[ 360 ] 
