MINUTES OF MEETING - December 6-7 
17 
of the proposal as requested. The RAC accepted 
Dr. Baltimore's motion by a vote of thirteen in favor, 
none opposed, with six abstentions. 
Dr. Zaitlin noted that at the last RAC meeting the Committee 
had approved a series of procedures, one of which requested 
submitters of proposals to provide a summary and to state 
hew their proposal relates to existing Guidelines. Dr. Zaitlin 
asked whether ORDA has a mechanism to implement this procedure. 
Dr. Gartland responded that ORDA would ask investigators to 
write a summary in somewhat less technical terms, and to 
cite the applicable section of the Guidelines. 
VIII. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS I-A and II-D OF THE GUIDELINES 
Dr. Novick said that the question that he raises here (tabs 773B, 
774/3) deals with the philosophical basis of the Guidelines. He 
said that the Guidelines were originally formulated on the 
hypothesis that recombinant DNA technology could result in the 
production of novel types of organisms. He said that as the 
properties of these novel organisms could not be predicted, a 
system was implemented wherein all such molecules would be con- 
tained. He observed that there has been a gradual change in the 
working philosophy of the RAC. He said the operative principle 
has become that prior restraint will not be imposed on scientific 
experimentation in the absence of fairly well defined hazard. 
Dr. Novick stated that he believed the Committee should define 
its operating principle and insert that language into the Guide- 
lines. He said he was not totally convinced that the exact 
language he had proposed for insertion into the Guidelines was 
appropriate, but that something to this effect should be 
inserted. Dr. Nightingale and Dr. Young objected to the wording 
of Dr. Novick' s proposal. 
Dr. Campbell said that if the motion as it now stands would be 
brought to a vote, he would strongly oppose it. The Guidelines 
would then state their purpose as dealing with cases of "clear 
perceived hazard." But that statement would then be followed 
by a long set of rules based on no clear perception of hazard. 
Ms. King said it is still too soon in common law development to 
propose a fundamental shift in the underlying philosophy and 
assumptions of the Guidelines. She suggested that in order to 
debate this issue the RAC must be presented with very carefully 
drafted language. Dr. Novick said he would attempt to draft 
another language. 
[ 410 ] 
