Page 2 - 
replace the recommendations contained in the 1975 Summary Statement 
of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. lAie latter 
would have permitted research under less strict conditions than the 
NIH Guidelines. 
The chronology leading to the present Guidelines is described in detail 
in my decision document. In summary, scientists engaged in this 
research called, in 1974, for a moratorium on certain kinds of exper- 
iments pending an assessment of potential hazards of this research and 
the development of appropriate guidelines. In response, the National 
Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation supported a 
conference sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences which was 
held at the Asilomar Conference Center in California in February 1975. 
The consensus of the meeting at Asilomar was that certain experiments 
should not be done at the present time, but that most of the work on 
construction of recombinant DNA molecules should proceed with appro- 
priate precautions. The Asilomar Conference report also made interim 
assessments of the potential risks associated with different types of 
experiments. 
The Asilomar Conference actions led the NIH to establish an advisory 
committee to develop guidelines for recombinant research funded or 
conducted by the NIH and to devise programs for assessing and control- 
ling hazards in such research. After a year's work, the committee 
in December 1975 proposed guidelines for the NIH to govern such DNA 
recombinant research. 
The proposed guidelines were reviewed at a special meeting of the 
Director's Advisory Committee held at the NIH on February 9-10, 1976. 
Members of the committee represented areas including not only science, 
but also law, ethics and consumer affairs. The meeting afforded an 
opportunity for the scientific community and the public to comment on 
the proposed guidelines. Over the past several months I reviewed the 
proposed guidelines in the light of the comments and suggestions made 
by the participants at the meeting as well as the written comments 
received after the meeting. A number of issues of special concern 
to the commentators were reviewed at my request by the advisory 
committee that developed the guidelines. I considered carefully the 
responses of that committee to the issues raised by the commentators. 
Within the month the NIH will publish a report containing the full 
transcript of the public hearing, the statements filed by public and 
scientific witnesses and the correspondence addressed to me on this 
matter. My decision, which is based on that record, examines each 
of the substantive issues presented with an explanation of my decision 
on each issue. These guidelines contain a number of revisions based 
on that analysis. On the basis of continuing discussions with other 
organizations which are conducting, monitoring or supporting this type 
[ 558 ] 
