To:

Members of the Advisory Committee on the guidelines for recombinant DNA.

Concerning: Those guidelines.

From: Genetics and Society Group; Science for the People.

Dear friend:

We are sending you a copy of our position paper, previously presented

at the 1975 meeting of the American Society for Wicrobiologists.
because we feel that the pack of mailings sent out bv the NIH on this matter
is incomplete, and many criticisms made by many other concerned  individuals
have been brushed aside.

We do this,

  Under separate cover YOU will be receiving a mailing from the "Boston
Area Recombinant Group" , which raises criticisms and suggestions about (a)
quality of containment facilities; (1)) the nature of exoeriinents to be pro-
hibited: and (c) the nature of the biological vectors to be used in these
experjments. We believe these recommendations are prudent, and worthy of
serious corisid era tion.

  In addition, we wish to raise the question of establishing mechanisms
of responsibilitv and enforcement. We do not: believe these aspccts should
be left in limbo, since it is well known that not only are there some
irresponsible investigators in science bur the pressure to publish, encourages
a type of speed up in research that ignores safety and social responsibility.

The potential dangers of the RCW technology are unknown, but all concerned

conceed that they could be great. Thus, the requirement that investijiators
file a public biohazard impact stateixnt in order to receive NIH funding is
not. unreasonable. Such a statement would act as a self-cducating device, as
well as an alert to the general scienrific community. The statement would
consider the possible effects on the health of workers in the institution
as well as the surrounding environment.

  The establishment of local biohazard safety comnittees is also important.
These committees should include not only the principal investigators, but also
representatives of technicians and students, laboratory siipport personnel,
clerical workers, and custrodians. These committees would be excellent forms
for safety education, as well as more objective watchdogs on possible infringement
of safety requirements.
work should be quaranteed.

The authority of these committees to restrict hazardous

  We believe that: the new recombinant DNA technology has all the promise and
perile that atomic energy had in the 1940's (and still has today). Now, bv
showing the utmost self and social responsibility,  the scientific community can
ensure that the benefits of this technology accure to all with the least risk.

Sincerely,

* Allen Silverstone

for the Genetics and Society
Policy Group, . 617-253-6416 or
492-4726.

Cancer Research Center
MIT
Cambridge, Mass. 02139