Or. William J. Gartland, Jr. 
January 31, 1984 - Page 3 
In our view, the RAC should continue to accept 
industrial proposals for review - as well as non-NIH 
funded government proposals for recombinant DNA 
research. 
At the last meeting of the RAC, there was a clear indi- 
cation of a willingness on the part of the committee 
membership to continue to accept and discuss questions 
in the area of bioethics; we see this maintenance of 
broad interest as the proper setting for continued 
responsibility in examining the problems of the indus- 
trial applications of recombinant DNA technology. The 
high level of public service rendered by the committee 
in its careful consideration of recombinant DNA 
applications has provided for protection of the public 
health and the environment. In addition, current 
public policy which blends scientific oversight through 
the RAC with voluntary adherence by industry and other 
non-funded parties has fostered technological 
innovation and U.S. leadership in genetic research. 
Diminishing the contribution of NIH and the RAC in 
oversight and review could create public concern and 
lead to controls inconsistent with public health needs 
and scientific progress. 
We recognize that the administration of the RAC 
creates additional burdens within NIH and that the 
institute may not have an explicit statutory mandate 
for this activity; however, NIH's contribution to the 
development of recombinant DNA technology, including 
continuation of the activities of the advisory 
committee, are actions consistent with its admirable 
contributions in other fields and with responsible 
public service. 
National science policy in other countries continues 
to be that of strong support and encouragement for the 
development of this new technology. We believe that 
continued RAC interest in and concern for applications 
extending beyond the laboratory are most important in 
meeting this international challenge. 
3. Should all portions of all RAC meetings be open to the 
public? 
[ 634 ] 
