6 
Dr. Walters noted that most public comments on reports such as the Office of 
Technology Assessment (OTA) report "Hunan Gene 'Therapy" have been frcm the 
parents of ill children. 
Mr. Capron, who had been the Executive Director of the President's Commission 
for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral 
Research noted that the letter from the Canmittee for Responsible Genetics 
(Attachment III) misquotes the President's Commission report "Splicing Life." 
Dr. Gorovitz questioned whether the points to consider should explicitly state 
a consensus exists. Cr. Walters said the introduction tends in that direction. 
Dr. Rich suggested although one could interpret the few conments (Attachment III) 
received on the January 22, 1985, Federal Register as reflecting a broad level 
of public understanding, this may not be so. He thought the working group 
should attempt to increase public understanding. 
Ms. Withe rby supported Dr. Rich's suggestion. She felt the public was not well 
informed about issues in human gene therapy. The working group should especially 
attempt to educate the public on the differences between somatic and germ line 
human gene therapies. 
Dr. Gorcvitz felt the working group serves two functions; one function is to 
serve as a filter to review protocols involving human gene therapy, the second 
function is to provide the public with confidence in the filtering process. These 
two functions are not mutually exclusive. 
Dr. Gottesman said the working group is actually discussing two different 
topics. The first topic is whether a consensus exists concerning application 
of somatic cell human gene therapy. The other topic is whether the public 
is aware of the issues involved with the application of human gene therapy. 
She said there have been ample public hearings on somatic cell human gene 
therapy; perhaps the points to consider document should acknowledge these 
hearings and reports . Public education is an ongoing process, however. The 
working group might also prepare an educational document, in this way the 
members of the working group would also educate each other. 
Dr. Walters called the attention of the working group to the March 22, 1985, 
draft version of the points to consider document (Attachment IV). He asked 
the working group to consider the revised version point by point. 
Dr. Temin said the footnote to the introduction is not accurate. That footnote 
read as follows: 
"Experiments using retroviruses (RNA) as vectors are also co/erad by the 
MITT Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DN& Molecules and hence 
by this document. Section III-A-4 applies to both reconbinant ENA and Df'CV 
derived from recombinant DNA." 
Dr. Temin said the vectors to be used in human gene therapy are RNA viruses, 
and the vectors introduced into the patients cells will be RNA rather than DNA. 
[ 91 ] 
