5 
Dr. Krimsky said the primary goals are; (1) to reduce excessive paperwork, 
(2) to eliminate the collection of information of no practical use, and (3) 
to support good laboratory practice. Dr. Krimslcy said he was not certain 
registration of Section III-O experiments with the IBCs was useful, but he 
suggested such a procedure might prove useful in investigating worker 
illness or to uncover inadvertent misclassifications of experiments. He 
supported option A. 
Dr. Mason said he would support option C. He suggested that RAC has 
acquired enough experience to justify exenpting those experiments covered 
by Section III-O; the exenption might be tailored to meet residual concerns 
through the selecting of suboptions. He moved acceptance of c^ticxi C. 
Mr. Ihomton called the vote. Ten RAC members suH»rted the motion v*iile 
ten voted against it. 
Mr. Thornton cast his tie-breaking vote against the motion. Dr. Scandal ios 
indicated at this point that he had not voted, but now wanted to support 
the motion, making the vote eleven in favor to ten opposed. 
Dr. Qottesman said, in view of the close vote on option C, it might be 
helpful to IT. F'redrickson to know the sense of the RAC in regard to chang- 
ing the Guidelines at least as far as option B or option A, and suggested 
that the RAC cast strawvotes on these options. Mr. Thornton and Dr. Bems 
agreed. 
Dr. Fedoroff requested further discussion of the issues. 9ie felt regis- 
traticxi of experiments was an inportant aspect of the Guidelines; opticxi A 
differed significantly from options B and C in entailing a registration 
provision. 
Citing parliamentary procedure. Dr. Baltimore said a motion should be 
perfected through amendments and selection of subopticxis before any vote is 
called. Mr. Thornton agreed with Dr. Baltimore but indicated that in this 
case he had hcped to expedite discussion by gauging the sentiment of the 
RAC in straw votes; RAC would subsequently amend and perfect the language. 
Ms. King said that if other RAC manbers wished to call attention to pro- 
cedural problems, she felt obliged to indicate that the previous vote on 
Dr. Mason's motion contained two procedural irregularities; (1) the chair 
had not called for discussion before the vote, and (2) a vote (Dr. Scandal ios') 
was noted after the RAC vote had been tallied. 
Mr. Thornton made the following ruling; The chair ruled that the votes on 
Dr. Mason's motion were cast ten in favor, ten exposed. The chair broke 
the tie by casting his vote against the motion. The vote noted after the 
tally was not accepted. Consequently, the motion, as made, failed. 
Mr. Thornton said he would entertain appeals on this ruling of the chair. 
As no appeal was made, he said the RAC should now proceed following strict 
parliamentary procedure, rather than taking straw votes. 
[ 94 ] 
