Margo G. Haygood p. 4 
vestigator. Although peer group review has the advantage of 
being ostensibly free from direct ties with the investigator, 
there are disturbing elements in this process. It provides that 
determinations of adequacy of safeguards will be made by other 
Investigators doing similar work, whose outlook is likely to be 
similar to that of the investigator. Consequently, the added 
scrutiny of the peer group may not result in any substantive 
additional review. The justification for bypassing wider input 
is most likely that determination of hazards and adequate con- 
tainment is liable to be highly technical, and much more readily 
made by those already familiar with the literature and proced- 
ures in practical . terms . It would perhaps be advisable for peer 
groups reviewing such grants to appoint an auxiliary group, 
representing viewpoints outside their field, and outside the 
scientific community per se, to provide independent review of 
hazards and safeguards. Such a group could include persons with 
interests and background in laboratory safety, environmental 
safety, ecology, public health, law and citizens at large. 
The group would have to be educated in technical aspects of the 
problem, and would need to be committed to keeping up with de- 
velopments in the field. Such a system might provide broader 
input, and avoid the limited outlook of the peer group. 
Further the Program Advisory Committee should be diversified. 
Although I was most impressed with the sincerity and disinter- 
estedness of the individual committee members that I met at the 
meeting, I believe that, as a matter of principle, conflict of 
interest, in reality or appearance, should be avoided. As Dr. 
Brown pointed out, expertise is always available in the forn 
of expert testimony. Care should be taken to ensure that no 
one group is in the majority on the committee. Membership should 
be similar to that described for the auxiliary coramixtee describ- 
ed above, including those dirctly involved in the research, those 
in fields indirectly bearing on questions of hazard, and some 
members outside the scientific community per se. 
I will be very interested to see how you resolve this problem - 
one in which very little seems clear-cut. I appreciate the 
opportunity to participate in what I consider to be an insuir- 
ing precedent for science, and I hope my comments are useful to 
you in your decisions. 
Mareo G. Haygood 
35 Sim St. 
Somerville, Mass 
02143 
[ 465 ] 
