results of the polyom experiments which attenpted to determine if recom- 
binant organisms containing oncogenes would induce tumors, and includes 
a sunmary of the Pasadena Risk Assessment Workshop held on April 11-12, 
1980. NIAID has awarded a contract to the University of Minnesota to 
develop a course on basic microbiological practices and techniques for 
work with hazardous agents. 
Dr. Krimsky noted the statement in the plan that "no risks of recombinant 
ENA research have been identified that are not inherent in the micro- 
biological and biochemical methodology used in such researth." He asked 
whether an increase in host range resulting from a recombinant manipula- 
tion would be considered a counter- instance to that statement. Dr. Krause 
replied that the risk assessment plan indicates that no such case has 
been known to occur; it does not inply that such an event is an inpossi- 
bility. 
Dr. Krimsky asked if the results of EPA contracts would be available to 
RAC, and if these results would be integrated into future NIH risk assess- 
ment analyses. Dr. Talbot replied that EFA reports periodically to the 
Industrial Practices Subcorrmittee of the Federal Interagency Committee. 
Mirxites of these meetings are forwarded to RAC. He noted that the United 
States Department of Agriculture (USQA) may also perform some risk assess- 
ment studies and the NIH will be kept abreast of those studies. 
Dr. KrimsKy raised a point regarding the wording in the second paragraph, 
third oolizm on page 61876, deeding with colonization of the intestinal 
tract. After some discussion it was agreed that the word "known" should 
be deleted frcm the last clause of the paragraph, vbich would now read 
as follows: "..., e\«n though E. roll K-12 has apparently lost those 
(dtaretcteri sties that are requit^ for colonization of the normal intestinal 
tract." Other questions by Dr. Krimsky regarding the plan were answered 
by Dr. Krause and RAC menbers. 
Dr. Wright suggested the risk assessment plan should be footnoted and 
referenced, and the identities of investigators disclosed. Dr. Wright 
also felt that the controversy between Rowe-Martin emd Rosenberg-Simon 
on the interpretation of the Rowe-Martin polyoma experiments should be 
included in the document. Dr. Krause, Dr. Williams and Mr. Thornton 
noted the debate was presented to, and carefully considered by, the 
RAC. Dr. Baltimore said that he does not believe there is a serious 
controversy concerning the interpretation of the polyoma experiments; 
rather, there is only what he considers a twisted interpretation of those 
experiments by some people. Dr. Krimsky stated his undierstanding that 
any positive results in the polyona protocols would be very inportant, 
and said that the reviewers who accepted the Rosenberg-Simon article 
for Nature must have seen some value in the article. (Executive Secre- 
tary's note: Nature has confirmed that the Rosenberg-Simon article 
eppeared as a feature article" rather than as a "scientific paper" and 
therefore was not formally peer revie%#ed]. Dr. Canpbell said that what 
[ 35 ] 
