-3- 
fifteen members present at the time this important revision was discussed 
voted according to their best assessments of the evidence. A two-thirds 
majority of those present and voting favored the proposal. 
If any question had been raised before the vote concerning the 
number of Committee members present, or if a deferral of the vote until 
the second day of the meeting had been requested, I have not the slightest 
doubt that the question would have been seriously discussed or the deferral 
granted. If I remember correctly, not one word was spoken about this 
procedural matter in Committee discussions, either before or after the vote. 
In closing, if the New Scientist report had merely questioned the 
prudence of the Committee's recommendation concerning research with E. coli 
K-12 hosts and vectors, I would not have written this lengthy response. 
Reasonable people differ in their judgments about the acceptability of 
potential risks. However, the New Scientist 's charges about procedural 
improprieties in the Committee's decisionmaking on this issue are either 
false or misleading. I hope that this letter can make a small contribution 
toward setting the public record straight. 
Sincerely yours 
Director, Center for Bioethics 
Kennedy Institute 
LW:cwn 
cc: William J. Gartland 
[ 366 ] 
