9 
3. A number of commentators have also urged that the local 
committees monitor the safety, accident, and training 
programs at fixed intervals and that their findings be 
part of a record available to the public. How does the 
committee respond to a recommendation that the local 
committee monitor activities at intervals of not more 
than six months and that they maintain appropriate 
records of review activities? 
4. How does the committee view our also recommending that 
the local committee share responsibility with the 
investigator to evaluate the potential hazard associated 
with each proposed research project and assess for each 
the physical and biological containment required under 
the guidelines? (The NIH is prepared to leave the judg- 
ment on scientific questions to its study sections as 
recommended in the guidelines.) 
B. The NIH Recombinant DNA Molecule Program Advisory Committee 
1. It has been noted that once the guidelines are issued, there 
may be some investigators conducting ongoing experiments 
that may not be in conformance with the guidelines and 
which must perforce cease as soon as the guidelines become 
effective if a switch to required containment is not 
possible. The minutes of your December 4-5, 1975, meeting 
contain the statement that "those workers who have constructed 
clones under the Asilomar guidelines should consult the 
Committee regarding their future use." When the guidelines 
are adopted, NIH-funded investigators in this field will 
be asked to respond within a given time period indicating 
that they will comply with the guidelines. Any investigators 
who constructed clones under the Asilomar guidelines, which 
under the new guidelines would require higher containment, 
will be asked to petition the NIH for a special consideration 
of their case. The advice of the NIH Recombinant DNA 
Molecule Program Advisory Committee will be sought concerning 
these cases. What is the committee's response to this 
approach? 
[ 416 ] 
