Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee - 06/1-2/92 
noted hesitation of prohibiting any responses following the 2 week deadline. Dr. 
Anderson disagreed with strict enforcement of the 2 week deadline noting that this 
requirement may prevent the submission of critical information or data that should be 
reviewed by all of the RAC prior to the meeting. Dr. Geiduschek was in favor of 
enforcing the 2 week deadline. 
Committee Motion 
Dr. Krogstad reviewed the suggested changes made by the RAC members to the 
proposed guidelines: 
GUIDELINES FOR PROTOCOL REVIEW 
Investigator-Submitted Material 
Written proposals should begin with the lay and scientific abstracts, followed by 
the Points to Consider and the material provided in the body of an R01 (sections 
A-D). When a proposal has been submitted previously, there should be a short 
section 200 words) immediately following the abstracts that summarizes major 
revisions since the last review. Length limitations are 4-5 pages for the Points to 
Consider , 2 pages each for curricula vitae (Biographical sketch format) and 20 
pages for the body of the proposal (excluding tables, figures, appendices and 
manuscripts). Data provided must include a description of the elements in the 
vector, the source of that information and the method by which sequence data 
were compiled, plus 3 diskettes with the vector sequence in ASCII format. 
Written material from Principal Investigators must be submitted * 8 weeks before 
the meeting at which it will be reviewed; written comments from the primary 
reviewers ^ 4 weeks before the RAC meeting, and written responses from the 
Principal Investigators * 2 weeks before the meeting. 
Oral presentations at RAC Meetings should provide only a brief overview of the 
proposal; they should concentrate on questions raised by the reviewers before and 
at the meeting. Oral presentations should be ^ 20 minutes: £ 10 minutes for the 
overview and ^ 10 minutes for responses to the reviewer's questions. 
Reviewer's Responses 
Written reviews should emphasize issues related to gene marking, gene transfer or 
gene therapy. They should state explicitly whether the Points to Consider have 
been addressed satisfactorily, and should examine the scientific rationale, scientific 
context (relative to other proposals reviewed by the RAC), whether the 
preliminary in vitro and in vivo data are obtained in appropriate models and are 
[732] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 15 
