6 
The subworking group agreed with this comment. Dr. Walters said the points to 
consider should convey the idea that the working group will revise the document 
as needed; if revision is necessary more than once a year, the document will be 
revised more frequently. 
Dr. Gottesman said the language of paragraph (3) of the Introduction to the 
points to consider document could better express this intent if modified as 
follows : 
"The document will be considered for revision as experience in evaluating 
proposals accumulates and as new scientific developments occur. This 
review will be carried out at least annually. " 
The subworking group agreed to this modification. 
Dr. Walters said Mr. Rogers also suggested the working group begin immediately 
to develop the procedural structure for cooperative efforts in assessing 
possible long-term consequences of somatic -cel 1 gene therapy. The subworking 
group said the Working Group on Human Gene Therapy is carmitted to cooperative 
efforts . 
Dr. Walters said Mr. Rogers had pointed out a typographical error in Section 
I-B-5-a; the language referring to Section III-D should refer to Section III-E. 
The sutworking group agreed this error should be corrected. 
Dr. Walters said Mr. Rogers had also suggested the working group should review 
its cwn composition. Dr. Whitens said the Working Group on Human Gene Therapy 
had already discussed the issue of the working group's composition and is 
committed to seeking the opinions of consultants who can provide the requisite 
scientific and social expertise. 
Dr. Anderson said Mr. Rogers also suggested Section I-B-5 of the points to 
consider should list experts in disciplines such as bioethics as "nonmedical " 
personnel . 
Mr. Mitchell said the working group should rrairrtain the prerogative of deter- 
mining on a case-by-case basis vhich expertise should be represented on the 
research team. The subworking group agreed and rejected this proposed.. 
Dr. Childress said Mr. Rogers also alludes to the issue of whether there are 
"right" answers to some of the points to consider. Dr. Childress asked whether 
the working group might at seme point move towards determining what would 
constitute "right" answers. 
Dr. Walters agreed seme of the points are rhetorical. The working group in 
seme points is simply asking "have you thought about it." At this time, the 
working group cannot indicate how it will respond to particular issues. 
[ 335 ] 
