Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee - 10/7-8/91 
Dr. Schaechter suggested a substitute motion that would charge the working group with 
examining the question and to come up with the pros and cons. This working group will 
report back to the RAC at its next meeting. Dr. Post seconded the substitute motion. 
Dr. Kelley said he was willing to accept the charge to the working group, and withdrew 
his motion to refer to the ASM. 
Dr. McGarrity restated the motion to refer the issue to an ad hoc working group within 
the RAC. 
Dr. Schaechter said that it is essential that the motion include not just fact finding. The 
working group has to be charged with making recommendations as well as constructing a 
proper scenario for the RAC to be able to make a decision. Mr. Capron said that the 
working group would include people from CDC, people from academia, people from 
industry, as well as several people from the RAC with this expertise. 
Dr. Schaechter restated the motion as a recommendation to create an ad hoc working 
group with outside consultants to determine the pros and cons of including known 
pathogens and excluding non-dangerous members of the Actinomycetes. Dr. Kelley 
seconded the motion. 
Dr. McGarrity put the motion to a vote. The motion passed by a vote of 19 in favor, 0 
opposed, and no abstentions. 
VI. FUTURE ROLE OF THE HUMAN GENE THERAPY SUBCOMMITTEE 
Dr. McGarrity said he would give a summary review of this afternoon's discussion of this 
topic at the appropriate time in the agenda tomorrow, October 8. 
Dr. Walters summarized the subcommittee's discussion during the July 29-30, 1991, 
meeting. Two working groups of the subcommittee were established. One working 
group, chaired by Dr. Parkman, was to look at how the question of the possible germ 
line effect of somatic cell gene therapy should be approached by the subcommittee. The 
second working group, chaired by Dr. Leventhal, was charged with assessing how the 
subcommittee has done thus far and how its activities could be better coordinated with 
the parent committee. This working group would talk with investigators who have been 
through the review process to ask how the process could be more helpful and to obtain 
frank comments on the Points to Consider. Also, it would consider recommendations for 
streamlining the review process including combining the functions of the subcommittee 
and the parent RAC. 
Dr. Leventhal said that the major focus of her working group was to ask the investigators 
[30] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 15 
