members are grateful for the help offered by Dr. Stanley Barban and his 
colleagues at the Office of Recombinant DNA in interpreting the 
guidelines. The exemption of certain categories of recombinant DNA 
experiments from the guidelines was felt to be a sensible and helpful step 
in the right direction. There was basic agreement with the present PI and 
P2 requirements for containment. Almost all of our applications fall in 
these latter categories. 
5. Comments on guidelines as "stringent" or "relaxed 11 . 
The consensus of the IBC was that the guidelines were, if anything, 
stringent, but there were no recommendations for relaxation of a specific 
item in the guidelines. 
6. Frequency of IBC meetings. 
The Committee meets annually and at the discretion of the chair or 
request of members. This is satisfactory since the committee communicates 
promptly and effectively by telephone and mail ballot regarding each 
application. There is presently no sentiment to meet for the sake of 
meeting, since our business can be transacted quickly in spite of the 
geographic dispersion of our members (two separate campuses plus two 
outside members whose offices are some miles away.) 
7. Relationship of the IBC to the general Biosafety Program. 
The present relationship with the Safety Office is cordial but 
restricted to our mandate. We are now doing our work successfully at a 
reasonable cost in faculty advisory and administratif ic time and effort. 
We do not involve ourselves with other concerns of the safety office such 
as radiation safety or fire safety. The addition of new biosafety duties 
to our committee would impose a burden on the IBC much heavier than that 
now borne. The committee felt that we should restrict ourselves to the 
administration of the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant DNA. Other biosafety 
concerns should be handled by the Safety Office with appropriate help from 
other sources when needed. 
The committee adjourned at 1:30 pm. 
[ 563 ] 
