12 
issues; investigators may comment if they feel they have seme thing to add to 
the discussion. 
Dr. Childress said he would to attempt to draft language to discuss the function 
of Part II of the document. This language would be inserted in the introduction 
of the points to consider document. 
Dr. Walters asked whether Section II-C-3 which asks whether somatic cell therapy 
will lead to germ line therapy should be deleted since this section had taken 
the greatest amount of flack frem canmentors . 
Dr. Anderson felt this issue should be mentioned in the points to consider 
doament since RAC will discuss such issues. Dr. Gottesman said the question 
is whether the RAC or the working group must have an answer to this question 
before recanmending approval of a proposal. Ms. Areen suggested a question 
could be added to the document inquiring whether this outcome would be "good" 
or "bad" for society. 
Dr. Murray said most clinicians agree human gene therapy is no different fran 
other forms of health care whose primary aim is to help the patient. Medical 
ethics suggest investigators should, thus, proceed with this form of therapy. 
Issues may exist but recognition of these issues should not block application 
of this therapy. 
Dr. Anderson felt the words "will lead to" in Section II-C-3 bias the respondent, 
and should be modified. 
Ms. Areen said Dr. Hass specifically asks whether somatic cell therapy renders 
more technically feasible germ line manipulation for the purpose of enhancing 
characteristics. She thought this issue should be included in Part II of the 
points to consider document since it is primarily a social issue in spite of the 
technical considerations. 
Dr. Anderson thought the initial human gene therapy protocols would not produce 
technical information which might be applied to enhance multigene characteristics . 
He did not wish to include a statement in Section II-C-3 discussing such possible 
ramifications of somatic cell gene therapy if initial protocols will not generate 
such data. 
Dr. Gottesman suggested Dr. Hass' question and the considerations raised by 
Dr. Anderson should be discussed in the introduction of the points to consider 
document. 
Dr. Walters suggested the document's introduction should contain language 
indicating that on the basis of the report "Splicing Life," the recent Office 
of Technology Assessment (OTA) report entitled "Human Gene Therapy," and the 
working group's own discussions, the working group has arrived at the consensus 
that human gene therapy is no different than other types of therapy. The approach 
of the points to consider document presupposes this consensus. Dr. Walters offered 
to attempt to write language to this effect for inclusion in the introduction. 
[ 12 ] 
