4 
Dr. Motulsky said several individuals had questioned the balance and composition 
of the working group. He noted that some respondants had called for an increase 
in technical specialists while others had called for an increase in public 
members. The subwofking group at the March 1, 1985, meeting felt the working 
group as currently constituted was probably at maximal operating size; and the 
addition of new members would probably decrease working group efficiency. 
Dr. McCarthy said the working group as it is currently constituted is the 
optimal size to perform its function; however, issues requiring special 
expertise may arise with particular proposals. He suggested the points to 
consider document should state clearly that additional scientific expertise 
will be sought during protocol review. 
Dr. Grobstein thought the working group as currently constituted is reasonably 
balanced between technical and social science expertise. He agreed the points 
to consider document should explicitly state the working group will probably 
need, however, additional expertise in specific topic areas during particular 
reviews . 
Dr. Bonnie Lee of the Pood and Drug Administration (TOA) said the points to 
consider should more explicity state the purpose of the document and the review 
responsibilities of the working group and the NIH. Will review focus primarily 
on the science? 
Dr. Gottesman felt the working group may have to split into two subworking groups 
during review of proposals. Cne subworking group would address scientific and 
technical issues; the other subwofking group would address social issues. 
Both groups would then meet in plenary session to discuss the whole proposal. 
Dr. Mot ul sky said the working group should first distinguish and discuss the 
technical issues; the social issues will then be couched in this technical 
understanding . 
Mr. Capron noted that one conmentor (Attachment III) had requested a scientific 
conference on the use of retroviral vectors. He questioned whether such a 
conference was necessary. 
Dr. Anderson said he had been discussing with representatives of the National 
Ac ad any of Sciences (NAS) the possibility of NAS sponsoring a public scientific 
meeting on retroviruses. 
Dr. Temin said retroviruses are a ccmplex and highly interesting area of research. 
He pointed out scientific meetings are usually devoted to the latest and the 
newest in the field. He questioned whether with such a meeting would reassure 
the public about the very complicated field of retrovirology. A meeting speci- 
fically directed towards public education should have a different format than 
the proposed NAS meeting. 
[ 89 ] 
