28 
MINUTES OF MEETING - June 5-6 
volume. Dr. Baltimore noted that containment is a function of the 
machinery used as well as of the volume. Dr. Walters moved to delete 
the sentence. The RAC passed this motion by a vote of fourteen in favor , 
one opposed, and one abstention. 
Mr. Thornton initiated discussion of Dr. Johnson's proposal (881/17/B) 
to amend Section I-D-6, by adding the sentence: 
"Those experiments utilizing an coli K-12 host-vector system and 
meeting the containment requirements of Section III-O are excluded 
from these prohibitions." 
Dr. Walters said he found the statement to be too broad. It could be 
interpreted as removing all experiments using E. coli K-12 as the host 
from all the prohibitions. Er. Walters assumecT it was Dr. Johnson's 
intention only to remove prohibition I-D-6 for these experiments. 
Dr. Walters recommended denying the proposal and so moved. Dr. Johnson 
said he had intended the proposal only to deal with prohibition I-D-6. 
Dr. Campbell said that Section III-O was based on consideration of proba- 
bility of effect of small-scale manipulations. He said that logic does 
not automatically apply to large-scale manipulations. He opposed the 
proposal . 
I 
The RAC denied 881/17/B by a vote of seventeen in favor, none opposed, 
and one abstention. 
XIX. PROPOSALS TO AMEND SECTION IV-E-2 OF THE GUIDELINES 
A. Proposal to Amend Section IV-E-l-b-(3)-(d) 
Mr. Thornton initiated discussion of Dr. Johnson's proposal (tab 877, 
881/18/A) to amend Section IV-E-l-b-(3)-(d) by the addition of the 
following paragraph: 
"Further volume increases at the approved containment level, e.g., 
for industrial development and production purposes, of previously 
approved (by the Director of NIH) large-scale experiments may be 
subsequently approved by the local IBC in accordance with 
Section IV-D-3-a. The IBC will notify ORDA of such volume 
increases . " 
Dr. Walters said he preferred to maintain the principle of external 
review or validation of equipment, although this review need not be 
conducted by the RAC. It was pointed out that this proposal might 
more properly be considered with Dr. Gottesman's proposal concerning 
RAC's role in reviewing large-scale applications. A motion to table 
the proposal passed by a vote of eighteen in favor, none opposed. 
[ 128 ] 
