BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY 
ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES. INC. 
Department of Biology 
Upton. New York 11973 
(516) 345- 3420 
October 9, 1979 
Dr. Elena 0. Nightingale 
Institute of Medicine 
National Academy of Sciences 
2101 Constitution Avenue 
Washington, D.C. 20418 
Dear Dr. Nightingale: 
Thank you for your letter of October 2, expressing concerns about the 
September meeting of the RAC. I agree that we had a horrendous agenda (and the 
RAC had previously voted against meetings lasting more than two days!). Perhaps 
it would help if I filled you in on some background. 
First of all, you pointed out that it would have been more logical to have 
discussed RAC procedures before taking up major action items. This discussion 
was originally placed on the agenda right after the question of the minutes of 
the previous meeting (the latter had to be first because the RAC previously 
voted to have it that way). The reason for shifting the procedures discussion 
was that the RAC member who originally asked for such a discussion. Dr. Ahmed, 
was not present until later in the meeting. Dr. Ahmed had asked me not to 
appoint him Chairman of the Working Group on Procedures, but wished to be a 
member of the Group. In accord with my attempts to set up working groups that 
reflect the differing opinions of various RAC members, I appointed Dr. Zaitlin 
as well as a representative from NIH to the Working Group. I considered it 
unfair to have Milton Zaitlin present the report and recommendations without 
Karim Ahmed being present, especially as their recommendations were different. 
Your other concern was that there was inadequate preparation for the vote 
on the E. coli K-12 exemption. The conclusions and discussions of the Falmouth 
and Ascot meetings have been available to everyone for a considerable time. You 
may not be aware that there was extensive discussion of this subject at the May 
meeting of the RAC, out of which emerged the idea that the original Campbell- 
Rowe proposal should be modified along the lines of the proposal finally voted 
upon last month. The group I appointed to rephrase the proposal and to provide 
documentation for it again reflected the varying opinions of the RAC. All of 
these opinions and documents are contained in the written material given to RAC 
members. In addition, at the May meeting there were a number of comments and 
discussion from non-RAC members, practically all from individuals opposing the 
Campbell-Rowe suggestion. I feel that Luther Williams at the September meeting 
did a superb job of going back over much of the material we had already heard. 
[ 348 ] 
