- 2 - 
numerous correspondents, discussed and further amended at the September 
RAC meeting, and approved by a vote of 10 for, 4 against, and 1 abstention. 
2. The only change in the agenda made prior to the discussion of the 
E. coli K-12 host-vector issue was the deferral of a report by the Working 
Group on RAC Procedures. This report was delayed to accomodate one of the 
members of the Working Group who was unavoidably delayed in his arrival 
on the first day of the two-day meeting. Thus, far from indicating any 
malicious intention on anyone's part, the alteration in the agenda demonstrated 
the Chairperson's interest in providing a fair hearing for each Committee 
member's point of view. 
3. No one forced any action on the RAC. Numerous scientists commented 
on the proposed reduction of containment levels and revision of oversight 
procedures for research with coli K-12 hosts and vectors. By my count, 
thirteen individuals and two groups commented on the proposed revision. 
All but one communication expressed support for the revision; the remaining 
communication did not oppose the revision but recommended that the views 
of Dr. Sydney Brenner be taken into account in the evaluation of the 
proposal. 
It is true that industrial scientists reported unpublished data on 
the autoimmunity question during the September RAC meeting. In my view, 
this report was simply discounted by RAC members because no data were 
available for examination. 
There is no reliable way, short of interviewing each RAC member, to 
determine the precise grounds for his or her vote on this proposed revision. 
Speaking for myself as one nonscientist on the Committee, my vote in favor 
of the proposed revision was based on the data from the Falmouth meeting, 
the data presented in the reports of the Rowe-Martin experiments, the report 
of the Working Group charged with studying this proposal, and the solicited 
opinions of several eminent immunologists on the autoimmunity issue. 
4. It is difficult to respond dispassionately to a charge which 
seems to question the competence of at least some nonscientist members 
of the Committee. My observation as one of those nonscientists is that 
all members of the Committee, both scientists and nonscientists, have 
made a conscientious effort to study the materials provided in advance 
of each meeting and to do whatever additional background reading is needed 
to prepare themselves for discussion of Committee matters. The fact that 
nonscientists voted both for and against the proposed revision at least 
indicates that nonscientists were not stampeded into adopting one position 
or the other. 
5. It is true that only fifteen members of RAC voted on this important 
proposed revision. The members who were present and voting regretted that 
the remaining members were prevented by other commitments or by unavoidable 
delays from taking part in the vote. However, thirteen members do constitute 
a quorum of the Committee, and it simply has not been possible to have all 
members of the Committee present for the whole of every RAC meeting. Thus, the 
[ 365 ] 
