SEPTEMBER 6-7 - MINUTES OF MEETING 
32 
Guidelines, they must, however, be performed under P3 conditions. 
Dr. Broadbent again called for the motion on section b) of Dr. Cohen's 
proposal. Dr. Young stated that he supports this motion. He felt it to 
be narrow enough in that it focuses on two relatively well-characterized 
organisms that have already been used in other cloning systems. Following 
Dr. Cohen's argument, Dr. Young judged that P2 containment is adequate 
and that P3 is overkill. Cr. Novick agreed with Dr. Gottesman that the 
philosophy of the RAC had changed; the RAC is giving approval because 
scientists want to do the experiments. In such a situation, patchwork 
regulations are developing. He disapproved of such an approach and felt 
that the RAC should elaborate on some general principles. The motion was 
called by Dr. Setlow. The RAC accepted the proposal by a vote of nine 
in favor, none opposed, with eight abstentions. (Dr. Campbell abstained.) 
Dr. Broadbent proceeded on to section a) of Dr. Cohen's proposal. Dr. Broadbent 
noted that he could not recommend approval of this section because of the 
sporulating characteristics of B. subtilis . Dr. Young stated that B. subtilis 
is a relatively poor spore- former; and that the experiment uses very specific 
DNA. 
Dr. Baltimore stated the he saw no real difference between proposals a) 
and b) the only difference appears to be 20 degrees in the spore heat 
viability. Dr. Baltimore concluded that the spores of S. coelicolor are 
no more contained than the spores of B. subtilis . Dr. Broadbent agreed 
with Dr. Baltimore. Dr. Young moved that section a) of Dr. Cohen's 
proposal be accepted. After some discussion, the RAC decided that there 
was no need of further information from Dr. Cohen concerning the type of 
experiments he preposed to perform. Dr. Mason stated that he had not 
heard the principle under which the RAC operates; rather the RAC appears 
to govern by exception. Dr. Walters noted there exists some problem 
with consistency; at the last meeting this proposal was refused and 
there appears to be no new evidence to support this proposal. Dr. Young 
offered additional information on B. subtilis . Dr. Krimsky asked Dr. Young 
whether he would accept sporogenic B. subtilis as a HV1 system. Dr. Young 
answered that not enough is known about B. subtilis at this time. He 
emphasized that the approval given in this proposal is very limited. 
The question was called by Dr. Setlow. The RAC accepted this proposal by 
a vote of eight in favor, five opposed, with five abstentions. Dr. Novick 
wished to be recorded as abstaining, and Dr. Krimsky wished to be recorded 
as voting no. 
B. Request for Approval to Clone Anabaena DNA into Klebsiella 
Dr. Campbell reviewed a request from Dr. Robert Haselkom of the University 
of Chicago to introduce segments of DNA from the Cyanobacterium Anabaena 
into strains of Klebsiella and to transfer the DNA among Klebsiella 
[ 181 ] 
