15 
Dr. Murray questioned why the Carmittee for Responsible Genetics was requesting 
an evaluation of the general desirability of gene delivery systsns; he felt at 
this time the disarmed retroviral delivery system appears to be the most premising 
systen. The subworking group agreed and felt it was not useful to undertake an 
evaluation of delivery systems at this time. Dr. Anderson said Ms. Goldberg 
was asking whether we knew enough about this systen to utilize it in human 
gene therapy protocols. He responded that obviously not enough is known about 
how this delivery system will function; that is why scientists are asking. 
Dr. Gottesman thought reasonable a request for a risk assessment conference 
on oncogenic viruses as well as on retroviral vectors in human gene therapy. 
Dr. Anderson said he was currently discussing with nr . Frank Press, the President 
of the National Acad any of Sciences (NAS) , potential symposium topics to present 
to the NAS council at the April 1985 meeting. He said he could propose bAS 
sponsor an October symposium on these issues. Dr. Gottesman suggested NAS might 
consider whether germ line therapy issues should be discussed. FT. Anderson 
felt such a discussion would be premature at this time. 
Dr. Gottesman questioned Ms. Goldberg's definition of "public merbers;" she 
noted that several members of the Working Group on Human Gene Therapy are 
public members, nr. Anderson felt Ms. Goldberg was referring to members of 
the Committee for Responsible Genetics when she used the term "public members . " 
Dr. Murray felt "public members" should be individuals who did net have a 
political "stake" in the outcome of the debate; the Conmittee for Responsible 
Genetics members may have a political stake in the outcome of deliberations. 
He thought the working group should avoid nominating individuals with a political 
stake since it would then be obliged to include representatives from every 
group in the political spectrum. He said working group meetings are open to 
the public, and the documents developed by the working group cure distributed to 
the public for comment. This process encourages public participation. 
Dr. Walters felt seme individuals associated with the Carmittee for Responsible 
Genetics could contribute to the working group effort. Dr. Anderson suggested 
these individuals could be appointed to the ad hoc panel of experts the sub- 
workirn group was proposing. The subworking group supported this suggestion. 
Dr. Walters asked why Ms. Goldberg was specifically urging the working group 
to attanpt to have full public disclosure; the working group is attempting to 
have full public disclosure. 
Dr. Walters said Ms. Goldberg's final point was that the working group should 
investigate private institutions which might be interested in human gene therapy 
applications. Ms. Areen questioned how the working group could possibly invest- 
igate private institutions when the NIH does not have the authority to require 
firms to report their activities. 
Drs. Walters and Anderson said the only industry researcher currently working 
in human gene therapy is affiliated wdth Genentech, Inc. This individual will 
cane to RAC as the project was originally supported by NIH finds. Dr. Walters 
said at this time there does not appear to be any ccmrercial incentive for 
companies to develop human gene therapy protocols. 
[15] 
