Dr. William Gartland 
2 
involved was totally inadequate. Moves from some of the new members to slow 
down the pace of decision and to improve procedures were often strenuously resisted 
or voted down (see attached article from Environment , May, 1979). 
The proposals below are made in the hope that procedures for handling future 
agendas of the RAC can be upgraded. Otherwise, it seems inevitable that at some 
point, serious errors are going to be made. 
II. Proposals for consideration at the meeting of the RAC, May 21-23, 1979 
1. Changes in RAC Procedures* 
a) A quorum for the committee should be defined. 
b) Meetings should not run over the previously announced time of adjournment. At 
the last meeting, at least two important decisions were reached after the official 
termination time: i) a decision to approve the proposal of Dr. David Baltimore to 
use defective mouse leukemia virus to insert genes into mouse cells in tissue 
culture; ii) a decision on interim procedures to deal with proposals for large- 
scale recombinant DNA processes. We propose that these decisions be reconsidered 
by the full committee. 
c) Votes should be recorded by name. Since the committee is responsible for making 
public policy for the recombinant DNA field, we feel the general public has a right 
to know in detail how decisions were made. As Ms. Patricia King stated at the last 
meeting, this record will be critical in the future for assessing the value of the 
RAC as a device for making public policy for technical issues. 
d) A glossary should be provided with each technical document so that the issues 
involved are intelligible to all members of the committee. (Scientists making 
proposals to ORDA might be asked to provide such as document.) 
e) Materials for committee meetings should be circulated at least two weeks ahead 
of the meeting time. To allow a reasonable turnaround time, this means that the 
period for responses to proposed actions published in the Federal Register should 
end at least three weeks before an RAC meeting. The present arrangements do not 
give adequate time for RAC members to absorb the material for committee meetings. 
Therefore we propose that the informal decisions reached at the last meeting, to 
mail materials one week ahead, be reconsidered. 
2. General principles for containment of risks from novel uses of recombinant DNA 
techniques 
The RAC should address directly the question of how to assess the risks from 
novel uses of recombinant DNA techniques and arrive at consensus on the general 
principles involved. We observe that some members of the committee tend to assign 
low containment levels unless some specific scenario for harm comes to mind. We feel 
this approach courts disaster. The techniques of nuclear fission are well understood. 
Even so, the formation of the hydrogen bubble at Three Mile Island was a totally 
unforeseen event. 
*Some of these proposals were made by members of the RAC at the last meeting but 
not acted upon. 
[ 253 ] 
