5 
Dr. Grobstein thought an NAS meeting devoted to retrovirus vectors and their 
safety would be useful. However, the working group and RAC will be reviewing 
specific proposals; and the NAS conference probably will not contribute to 
review of specific proposals. 
Dr. Motulsky suggested the working group might organize a meeting of a small 
group of experts to address retrovirology and retroviral vectors in human gene 
therapy. 
Dr. Gottesman said she would prefer a small nee ting of experts who might 
specifically discuss the use of retrovirus vectors in human gene therapy and 
educate the scientific community in retrovirology. She said she would like 
to have an opportunity to discuss the issues with retrovirus experts and deter- 
mine the parameters of consideration. 
Dr. Rich felt the working group had tod greatly limited the attention focused 
on social concerns. He suggested that if the working group sponsors a session 
on technical issues, it might also consider organizing a session on social and 
ethical issues. He thought scholarly papers in these topics would be very 
useful . 
Dr. Gorcvitz said Mr. Jerany Rifkin of the Foundation on Economic Trends had 
referred to the points to consider as regulations (Attachment III); this indi- 
cates misunderstanding about the document's purpose. Dr. Gorovitz said the 
points to consider are simply informational requests to investigators preparing 
proposals for submission to the NIH for review. He questioned whether the 
working group should be more explicit in stating that the points to consider 
are requests for information. Should the working group consider the need for 
setting standards of review? 
Dr. Gorcvitz said two points of view exist as to how and when to develop 
guidelines for review of human gene therapy proposals. One view is that no 
protocols should be approved before there is a public consensus on human gene 
therapy. The other view is that such guidelines cannot be developed a benetio 
but must arise out of experience* He said he held the later view. He wondered 
whether the working group should explicitly state that guidelines cannot be 
developed as an independent exercise. 
Mr. Capron said a public consensus exists on the appropriateness of applying 
human somatic cell gene therapy. Many public hearings have explored this 
topic . Witnesses from every area of the spectrum have supported application 
of human somatic cell gene therapy, and many reports have repeatedly stated 
this consensus. 
Mr. Capron said the public should be aware the working group feels a consensus 
exists on the appropriateness of applying human somatic cell gene therapy. 
The working group is approaching the completion of the points to consider 
document; and if some individuals are concerned, now is the time for these 
individuals to make these concerns heard. 
[ 90 ] 
