May 21-23 - MINUTES OF MEETING 
7 
higher level of containment required for the eukaryotic 
insert when the Ti plasmid is used. In the RAC discussion, 
it was pointed out that although the Federal Register notice 
of April 13, 1979 cited the use of the plasmid Ti::RP4, this 
new experimental approach was much safer. Dr. Ahmed expressed 
concern that the revised proposal had not been published in 
the Federal Register . Dr. Krimsky expressed concern that 
the RAC appears to be approving A. tumefaciens as a host- 
vector system. With regard to pathogenicity, Dr. Tolin 
stated that A. tumefaciens is a pathogen and attacks wounded 
areas of fruit trees. 
Dr. Kutter stated that general approval for A. tumefaciens 
as an HV system can not be considered because of the conjugative 
Ti plasmid, but that the RAC should consider approving specific 
experiments. A two-part motion was proposed by Dr. Kutter: 
a. Approve the cloning of well-characterized 
fragments of eukaryotic DNA under P3 conditions, 
either in El. coli K-12 or in A. tumefaciens , 
carrying a Ti plasmid, using an EK2 plasmid 
vector coupled to a fragment of the Ti plasmid 
and/or the origin of replication of a cryptic 
A. t umefaciens plasmid. 
b. Approve introducing these bacteria into plant 
parts or cells in culture under P3 containment 
conditions. 
Dr. Day stated that Dr. Kutter's motion was unnecessarily res- 
trictive, but that he would reluctantly vote for it. Dr. Zaitlin 
said that the second part of the proposal should require only 
P2 containment. 
Dr. Ahmed moved to defer action until a "proper" notice is 
published in the Federal Register for reconsideration at the 
next meeting. In his view, there had not been adequate oppor- 
tunity for review of the proposed host- vector system. Dr. Ahmed's 
motion failed to carry by a vote of 6 in favor, 11 opposed 
with 1 abstention. Drs. Ahmed and Parkinson wished to be 
recorded as voting in favor of the motion. 
Dr. Kutter's motion was then passed by the RAC by a vote of 
14 for, 2 opposed, with 3 abstentions. It was noted that 
this recommendation is narrower and more restrictive than 
the proposal published for comment in the Federal Register 
of April 13, 1979. It was also noted that recommendation 
of this proposal should not be construed as a general approval 
of the Agrobacterium system as a new cloning system. 
[ 102 ] 
