MINUTES OF MEETING - December 6-7 
11 
Dr. Mason said that the RAC could delegate responsibility to a 
working group with the proviso that if any concerns arise the 
issue be returned to the RAC. Dr. Walters suggested the RAC 
delegate authority to the working group with the provision that 
the working group report to the RAC by mail. Dr. Goldstein said 
that the working group should report back to the full RAC in 
session. Dr. Harris suggested that the working group be empowered 
to authorize the work to proceed in the absence of any data to 
the contrary. Dr. Williams said that the issues and the data to 
be evaluated are relatively straightforward and simple, and 
appointing a working group with the representative expertise 
would be a reponsible procedure. A straw vote was taken on 
whether the RAC preferred alternative (a) or alternative (a') 
of Part 2 of Dr. Gottesman' s motion. Nine members of the RAC 
preferred alternative (a), nine members preferred alternative 
(a'). 
Dr. Gottesman moved Part 2 of the motion with alternative a' 
including the modifications previously suggested by Drs. Young 
and Zaitlin which she had agreed to. Dr. Campbell asked whether 
the motion would permit the working group to recommend at the 
next RAC meeting that future considerations be delegated to the 
working group. Dr. Gottesman and Dr. Young agreed that the RAC 
might proceed in that manner. Dr. Campbell stated that it was 
the sense of the RAC that this motion constituted the "major 
action" and that future recommendations of the RAC approving 
future recommendations of the RAC approving further stages of 
the experiment would be "minor actions." The motion was accepted 
by a vote of thirteen in favor, four opposed, with one abstention. 
Dr. Gottesman then moved part three of her motion, and it was 
seconded by Dr. Walters. Dr. Campbell said he wanted to amend 
containment conditions to PI + EK1 . This was seconded by 
Dr. Baltimore. Dr. Gottesman said that the question of whether 
there is any possibility of the clones recombining with related 
viruses must be considered. Dr. Baltimore said that the postulate 
of recombination between two disparate animal viruses has no 
precedent. Dr. Krimsky asked if USDA has any responsibility 
once the material from Plum Island arrives at another facility. 
Dr. Call is answered that the Vectors Committee evaluates the 
experimental protocol, the qualifications of the personnel, and 
the adequacy of the facilities where the work is to be done. 
Mr. Thornton said that he cannot reconcile the idea of a container 
being couriered across the country and then the contents being 
used at PI + EK1 conditions. Dr. Baltimore said that it was his 
[ 404 ] 
