MINUTES OF MEETING - March 6-7 
26 
XVIII. PROPOSAL ON EQUIVALENCY OF HV SYSTEMS WITH EK SYSTEMS 
■ - - ■ ■ ■ ■ - ■ ■ - — ■ — - 
I 
Dr. Williams presented a proposal submitted by Dt. Richard Novick (tab 
82&) , who was not present at the meeting. He said Dr. Novick has attemp- 
ted -to address the question of whether the Guidelines should be amended 
to institute complete equivalency between EK and HV host-vector systems. 
Dr. Willians said he believed Dr. Novick prefers equivalency between the 
EK systems and the three HV systems certified to date only in shotgun 
cloning experiments. Dr. Talbot and Dr. Gottesman said they found 
Dr. Novick' s proposal confusing. 
Dr. Gottesman cited two major issues on the question of equivalency: 
(1) Should equivalency be extended to return to host of origin experiments 
using HV systems; and (2) Should IBCs be authorized to lcwer containment 
levels for characterized clones in HV systems, as they were previously 
permitted to do for EK systems. 
Dr. Gottesman suggested that equivalency should not be extended to return 
to host of origin experiments, i.e.. Sections of the guidelines (such as 
III-C-6) which permit return to host of origin of ENA propagated in 
Escherichia coli K-12 should not be expanded to also include propagation 
in other HV systems. She said the characteristics of the certified 
hosts and vectors vary from system to system, and the general principle 
should not be applied to all cases. For example, she noted that a wide 
range of Saccharanyces cerevisiae plasmids exist, some of which carry 
information which might have an effect on other organisms. In addition, 
certain yeast plasmids can integrate into the chromosome. She said that 
for these reasons she views the yeast host-vector systems as more complex 
than the Escherichia coli systems. She moved that the Guidelines should 
not be amended to extend equivalency to return to host of origin experi- 
ments; rather, each case should be evaluated individually. A straw vote 
was taken to determine the sentiment of the RAC on this issue. 
Dr. Gottesman' s proposal was supported by a vote of nine in favor, none 
opposed, and five abstentions. 
A straw vote was then taken to ascertain the sentiment of the RAC on 
permitting local IBCs to lcwer containment for characterized clones. The 
RAC supported this proposal by a vote of nine in favor, one opposed, and 
three abstentions. A working group composed of Drs. Novick, Brill, Campbell 
and Gottesman was appointed to develop language for publication in the 
Federal Register prior to the next meeting. 
[ 61 ] 
