SEPTEMBER 6-7 - MINUTES OF MEETING 
27 
The RAC accepted this motion by a vote of seventeen for, none opposed, 
with no abstentions. 
The discussion then turned to recommendation 3 of this Part. Dr. Ahmed 
introduced his proposal to require two-thirds of RAC members to constitute 
a quorum for "major" actions. Dr. Ahmed felt that requiring a two- thirds 
quorum would ensure that the issues were fully discussed before being 
acted upon. Dr. Goldstein preposed that a minimum vote of two-thirds of 
the Committee's authorized membership be required to pass major actions 
of the RAC. Dr. Walters suggested that the chair and ORDA plan for the 
most important items to be located towards the center of the two-day RAC 
meeting, and to aim for maximum attendance. Dr. Setlow cited the practical 
problem of the closed session of the meeting always held at the very 
end. Dr. Gottesman called for a vote to keep the status quo; i.e., paragraph 
3) of this Part would be struck. The Ccmmittee voted to make no changes 
with respect to quorum for voting on major actions by a vote of ten for, 
six against, with two abstentions. The text as adopted appears as Part III of 
Attachment III to these minutes. 
Conflict of Interest 
Dr. Zaitlin then introduced Part IV of the Report. Dr. Zaitlin noted that 
this section deals with conflict of interest and that there are statutes 
dealing with this problem. This section permits the individual to make 
the judgement of conflict of interest with guidance from the chair and 
the Executive Secretary. Dr. Ahmed moved to adopt this section of the 
report. Dr. Baltimore noted that the term "personal stake" is too 
vague and suggested that it be struck. Mr. Riseberg stated that the 
phrase "personal stake in the outcome" is something that goes beyond the 
statutory criminal code. It can be removed from the Committee's rules 
of conduct. The later portion dealing with financial interest is a direct 
reflection of the criminal statutes and cannot be removed by action of 
the RAC. Dr. Krimsky asked Mr. Riseberg to give the Committee examples 
of conflict of interest, and asked how NIH or HEW deals with such. Dr. Krimsky 
asked if there were sanctions. Mr. Riseberg responded that there were, 
i.e., several years in jail and a substantial fine. Mr. Riseberg gave 
the following example of conflict of interest; reviewing your own research 
grant application, or reviewing one from your own institution. 
Dr. Goldstein pointed out that often he bases his decision on the discussion 
of the issue that occurs at the meeting, and he wondered whether simply 
disqualifying oneself from the vote is sufficient since the arguments of 
every person seated at the table are going to influence the vote. Mr. Riseberg 
responded that if you have a conflict of interest you are not to participate 
at all. Dr. Ahmed accepted Dr. Walters' amendment to strike the phrase 
"in which that member has a personal stake in the outcome." The motion to 
accept this Part as amended then was accepted by a vote of sixteen for, 
none against, with one abstention. The text as adopted appears as Part IV 
of Attachment III to these minutes. 
[ 176 ] 
