« 
Dr. NovicX ooved ac3optic3n of option B with the proviso that a listing 
requirement be ap pended^ but that no review be required. Dr. Fedoroff 
seconded the lotion. Mb. King pointed out that supporters of option C 
could neve a substitute notion at this point. She said she herself would 
not do so, as she would not support option C. Dr. Brill nt>ved substitution 
of option C. The notion was seconded. Mr. Thornton said that the substi- 
tute notion would be considered before the origi^^d notion, but that it 
should be perfected before a vote to adopt would occur. In order to expedite 
discussion, Mr. Thornton as)ced Dr. Brill, as the maker of the substitute 
notion, to select the suboptions he would prefer under option C. Dr. Brill 
said he would prefer suboptions C-l-a, C-2-b, C-3-b, C-4-c, and C-5-b. 
Dr. Oottearan suggested that suboption C-l-b be substituted for suboption 
C-l-a. She said suboption C-l-a is much broader tlwm Section III-O of the 
current Guidelines; it would permit the use of all vectors including conju- 
gation proficient plasmids and vectors. Cr. Brill accepted Dr. Gottesnan's 
ame n dment. 
Dr. Bems suggested that suboption C-2-a, in which large-sccde experiments 
are not exenpt, be substituted for suboption C-2-b, which would exempt 
large-scale experiments. Cr. Brill accepted the substitution. 
Dr. Bems also suggested that suboption C-3-a be substituted for C-3-b, 
as he thought good microbiological procedures should be reccninended . 
Dr. Brill accepted this substitution. 
Dr. Bems further suggested an amendment to option C; cloning of CDC Class 3 
agents in host-vector systems covered by Section III-O, would be exempt pro- 
vided that not more than 75 percent of the genome is cloned, cr. B6dtimore 
asked if this provision would apply to bacteria as well as to viruses. 
Dr. Bems said he had made the proposal with viruses in mind. cr. Fedoroff 
said the amendment did not clearly indicate whether less than 75 percent 
of the genome could be used to construct a library or if less than 75 
percent of the genome was permissible in a single clone. Dr. Bems said 
he visualized his proposal as applying to a single clone or a single cell. 
There was no second to Dr. Bems' amendment. 
Dr. Gottesnan moved to substitute suboption C-4-b for suboption C-4-c. 
Cr. McKinney asked Dr. Adelberg how suboption C-4-b would impact on his 
institution. Dr. Melberg replied that in his IBC experience, experiments 
involving CDC Class 3 agents constitute a very small fraction of all recom- 
binant ENA work. Dr. McGarrity noted that suboption C-4-b requires review 
by either the IBC or an institution£d officiad. He asked that the reviewing 
official be stipulated. Cr. Gottesnan agreed and specified review by the 
IBC. By a vote of eleven in favor, four opposed, and five abstentions, RAC 
adopted suboption C-4-b. 
Dr. Carpbell offered an amendment to suboption C-4-b. The following 
sentence would be added: 
(951 
