SEPTEMBER 6-7 - MINUTES OF MEETING 
25 
felt that the RAC should have the option to call consultants, and these 
consultants should receive their expenses plus a consulting fee. However, 
if a consultant is the direct beneficiary of the outcome of the deliberations, 
the Working Group felt the RAC should avoid calling that person and 
should call someone else. If an expert witness has a stake in the outcome, 
then neither his expenses nor a consulting fee should be paid by NIH. 
Dr. Walters noted that the proposal appears to cut the RAC off from expertise 
depending on how the phrase "personal stake" is interpreted. He noted 
that all molecular biologists in a certain area of research would have a 
"personal stake." Dr. Walters suggested the phrase "direct and immediate" 
be inserted before the phrase "personal stake." Dr. Baltimore suggested 
instead, the phrase "such a personal stake in the outcome as would affect 
their objectivity." Dr. Parkinson preferred that a consultant make a 
statement of all affiliations. Dr. Baltimore cited the case of the development 
of HVl systems in yeast and noted that the yeast system could not have 
been adequately discussed if the RAC had not invited the developers of the 
yeast HVl system to present data at a meeting. Dr. Campbell agreed saying 
that to some extent the developers of HV systems are performing a service 
to the RAC. Dr. Parkinson stated that he is not concerned about whether 
or not NIH pays the consultant to cane to the meeting; rather he is concerned 
with the objectivity of the consultant. Dr. Zaitlin noted that the Working 
Group was considering a situation in which the immediate proponent of the 
issue is also the expert witness. Dr. Baltimore reiterated that the RAC 
wants to hear proponents of an issue or an experiment. Dr. Gottesman 
stated that in her view, the presence of a proponent is often appropriate; 
the Committee can provide the objectivity and the ability to evaluate the 
data. Dr. Gottesman recommended deletion of Part II of the Vforking Group 
report. Dr. Mason felt that if the RAC wants someone here, the RAC should 
pay for their expenses. Dr. Goldstein suggested the creation of two categories 
i.e., expert and advocate. 
Dr. Ahmed raised the procedural question of how it is decided who to invite. 
Dr. Setlow responded that the chairperson in consultation with ORDA and 
various subcommittees invites consultants. Dr. Baltimore moved that this 
discussion be treated as advice to the chairperson and that this Part of 
the Working Group Report be deleted. Dr. Campbell suggested that the 
chairperson poll the appropriate RAC subcommittee as to whom to invite. 
Dr. Parkinson noted that two separate situations exist: (1) the situation 
in which objective review of a request is needed, and the RAC does not 
possess the required expertise. In this case, a consultant should be called 
who is not the person putting forth the request; and (2) the situation in 
which the Committee feels there are new technical developments which it 
wishes to review. Dr. Parkinson suggested that this type of witness be 
called an expert witness and be defined differently from a consultant. 
Dr. Goldstein suggested that the RAC should be notified in advance of the 
paid consultants invited to its meetings. Dr. Baltimore again moved that 
Part II of the Vforking Group report be struck. Dr. Walters amended 
[ 174 ] 
