[Memorandum to Acting Deputy Director for Intramural Research, NIH from F. William Dommel, Jr.]

17

necrosis, in conform ity wiLh the wishes of the Ethics Committee which had
immediately been informed of' the fatal complication. The inquiry of the
French Ministry of Health clearly shows that therc was no violation of the
regulations in IN3 case either.
3.3. Concerning complaints formulated page 10 of O.P.R.R.
Memorandum: 'The Claim that thc N.I.H. ha3 largely contributed to the
implementation of our experimntsni is extigxuruLed. Apart from intellectual
exchange,. of a general scienLific nature, and often 01 a private and
amicable character, rathcr than institutional. the N.I.H. scientisitts took no
part in our projects (othcr than D and E., in a S.trict rcienifiC Senlse, i.e. ill
their conccptiun, in btidgctAry ivnulvtvment. logistics, rollowv-up and
interpretation of results. For a scientist, the acquisition or a reagent which
in any case Is simple to make, and the methodology for Ovhusc man ufacture
is pub lirphd, merit,, mcrely iacknowxedgcment or at the mos-t citatlin A~itilt
co-author of a publication. us *we cited B. Moss and R. Gallo in the case of
project F.
We have ncve(1r said that wvhen there wjai~ a rcm~riction on u!;agc w vere
not scnit Nwritten notif icatloll that often requires igj4111 ilCC thtiS'sthe
rulu in exwliangcs betw-een scientists; that is also Nwhy, when B. Moss did
nlot nutif u LS (-A any. restriction against using his product on hu man
sub jects, wve \wre justified in u ing the culture growk n fromn it in. our
laboratory for a Fran;o--Zairian -icollaburation with %which lie is in no wa\y
iflvulved. f, w\-he-n he sent us the produci in july- 19A~6 he had iformed us
or w aan - e trictO eWould h. IAvearngdtIanfcue-u