11 
The notion was secxaided by Dr. Goldstein. Ms. King stated that she favors 
retention of limited Guidelines that require IBC review, and she favors an 
oversight function for the RAC; she does not support self-regulation. 
Dr. Baltinore did not accept Ms. King's proposed amendment. Dr. Bems pointed 
out that the substitution Ms. King was proposing did not make much difference. 
Ihe real point of ccMitention in the RAC concerned part six of Dr. Baltimore's 
motion. 
Ms. King withdrew her previous motion and then moved to delete part six of 
Dr. Baltimore's motion. If her motion were accepted, this would leave intact 
Part IV of the Guidelines. It was pointed out that the Working Group had 
proposed a change in Part IV dealing with IBC membership. Ms. King said that 
if her motion passed, then another perfecting motion could be introduced deal- 
ing with IBC membership. Dr. Harris seconded. The motion failed to carry by 
a vote of nine in favor, twelve opposed, and no abstentions. 
Dr. Fedoroff noted that the motion as it stands would eliminate all prohibi- 
tions including the prohibition against deliberate release into the environ- 
ment. Dr. Baltimore suggested that if the RAC wished, a statement regarding 
deliberate release could be included with the admonition on drug resistance. 
Dr. Bems said that in his view the recommendation that experiments be con- 
ducted under Pi containment precludes deliberate release into the environment. 
Dr. Maas then moved to add the current prohibition on the cloning of certain 
toxins to the admonition on drug resistance. Dr. Goldstein seconded. 
Dr. Gottesman said that the cloning of toxins is an example of an area of con- 
cern. She noted that the RAC Wbrking Group on Ibxins recommended at the last 
RAC meeting prohibition of cloning of certain toxin genes and that other exper- 
iments involving cloning of toxin genes should proceed only in ^ coli K-12 in 
the abSjence of special review by ORDA. Dr. Baltimore agreed to accept addition 
of the wording regarding toxins currently in Section I-D-2 to the admonition 
on drug resistance and to retain Appendix G of the current Guidelines. 
Dr. Ahmed moved that a working group be appointed to study the prohibitions 
and report back to the RAC. Dr. Goldstein seconded the motion. Dr. Masai 
disagreed, noting that at the last meeting a working group had been appointed 
to report on revision of the guidelines. They had reported, and now the RAC 
was working through the proposal to prepare material for public comment. The 
motion failed to carry by a vote of three in favor, fourteen opposed, and 
three absentions. 
Mr. Thornton recognized Dr. Susan Wright. She said the RAC was short-circuit- 
ing long and detailed discussions it should have on all the critical issues. 
She asked RAC members to acknowledge ties that they might have with genetic 
engineering conpanies. She said there should be discussion of why the working 
group had decided to eliminate public menbers on IBCs. She expressed concern 
about the currently prc^ibited experiments and large-scale experiments. She 
[202] 
