UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 
INSTITUTIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE (IBC) 
MINUTES 
November 22, 1982 
Members present: Amer(representing Ehrmann and the Safety Office); 
Barnes, Galas, Goodman, Gordon (chairman) and Wagner. 
The meeting was called to order at 12:10 pm. The agenda consisted 
principally of formulating responses to the queries addressed by the 
Office of Recombinant DNA about the functioning of the current guidelines 
and of the IBS committees. Before point by point discussion of these 
items, the Committee voiced its general satisfaction with the procedures 
by which it is now working. The Committee then considered each of the 
queries addressed to it by the Office of Recombinant DNA in the order in 
which they were presented. 
1. Problems encountered by the IBC with the revised guidelines. 
The consensus was reached that there were no major problems with the 
guidelines encountered by our Committee. It was agreed that simplicity 
and clarity were desirable goals and in particular, more summary tables or 
charts would be helpful for quick, accurate reference. The present 
procedures of the USC IBC, which includes succinct documentation in 
applications of specific pertinent sections of the guidelines; rapid 
balloting, facilities check and notification of decisions; a mechanism for 
monitoring and review; and an accessible file for current and past 
projects, were onerous for neither applicants nor committee members. No 
real problems have arisen in the university or the community at large in 
the course of observing both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines. 
2. Items that take IBC members' time. 
The Committee voiced no complaints. Worksheets kept for each 
application document the dates of sending and receipt of each ballot and 
of the facilities check. They show prompt attention by the 
administration, committee members and safety office. It can be inferred 
from the above, therefore, that Committee members are not unduly burdened, 
3. Items that take inappropriate amounts of IBC members' time. 
None were identified. 
4. Agreement/disaqreement with the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee 
(RAC) with regard to containment. 
Our safety office runs through the guidelines checklist for each 
application. As is mentioned below, some members of the IBC feel that the 
guidelines lean in the direction of being stringent; but there was general 
satisfaction with the way the system functions in practice. Committee 
[562] 
