III-A-1-1. Dr. Mary Ellen Jones 
A May 16 letter was received from Mary Ellen Jones, Ph.D., Kenan Professor 
and Chair, Department of Biochemistry & Nutrition, School of Medicine, 
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The letter states: 
"I write as the President of the Association of Medical School 
Departments of Biochemistry to state that as the principal elected 
representative of my society, I believe I can give their general 
support for the Llndow and Panopoulous field test of ice-nucleation- 
minus bacteria prepared by recombinant DNA techniques. . . . 
"I believe the most crucial issue is that natural deletion mutants 
occur so that the recombinant deletion mutants cannot be considered 
unique. ... I believe the Environmental Assessment was exhaustive." 
III-A-l-m. Dr. Trevor Suslow 
A May 17 letter was received from Trevor Suslow, Ph.D., Director of Product 
Research, Staff Scientist Plant Pathology/Biocontrol, Advanced Genetic 
Sciences. The letter states: 
"In my opinion the EA is a well prepared document that involves 
the expertise of some excellent research plant pathologists and 
well qualified advisors." 
Dr. Suslow includes one specific comment on the EA which is cited and 
discussed below in Section III-A-3 of this memorandum. 
In addition. Dr. Suslow questions why the EA was prepared at all. He 
states that it has been "an unnecessary task asked of NIH," in which 
"much energy and effort was expended to restate the consensus" previously 
reached by the RAC at their April 11, 1983, meeting when they recommended 
approval of the Lindow-Panopoulos field test. The letter states: 
"I believe I also understand the basis for the requirement to 
complete such a document and Finding of No Significant Impact to 
satisfy legal requirements set for NIH. However, in reading the EA 
I was dismayed to find that such a large effort was expended 
to compile information that In my mind gives no greater assurance of 
safety than was available in the proposal of Lindow-Panopoulos that 
was approved by RAC. Except for site-specific information for Tule 
Lake, no substantially new information is brought forward to alleviate 
fears by documentation of experimental results. As no actual data Is 
included or cited for many of the broad statements as to microbial 
competition, population dynamics, pathogenicity, etc., the statements 
as to risk or safety have diminished credibility. 
"My point is simply that this has been an unnecessary task asked 
of NIH and that the consideration and approval of the proposal by 
RAC, as submitted, was properly conducted with the currently available 
information in this subject area. The environmental and health 
7 
[171] 
