12 
Dr. AJrcd said he wished to qvjote and highlight several points fron the 
letter fron the Public and Scientific Affairs Board of the American Society 
for Microbiology. He quoted fron that letter that: 
"Our concern is for the fact that only sparse infonration is 
available for other host-vectors. With less characterized systems, 
new combinations may result in organisms with potentially increased 
pathogenicity than either the donor or the recipient. 
"We are not only concerned with the paucity of infomation but also 
with the lack of mechanisms for its dissemination. Many workers 
using modem genetic technology 2 u:e not versed in pathogenic micro- 
biology and cannot be assumed to have proper training or access to 
up>-to-date infomation." 
Dr. Martin said he believed as a scientist that reccmbinant ENA should not 
be singled out for special oversight. However, this position must be viewed 
within the historic^d context. He said that the state legislators and 
oointy supervisors with whom he had spoken are not priirarily interested in 
the scientific basis for relaxation or elimination of the Guidelines, but 
rather in public opinion. RAC must be careful not to excite a public 
reaction that oould result in greater bureaucratic and regulatory problems 
fron loc^LL jurisdictions. 
Ik:. Saginor said he would like to propose an amendment to the December 7, 
1981, prc^x»al, should it pass, that a working group be formed to further 
refine, simplify, and reorganize that prcposeil, and that this group report 
to the RAC at a future meeting. 
A discussion was held of the proper parliamentary procedure for the Committee 
to use to proceed. Mr. Thornton suggested that the Committee might vote 
now on Ct. Nightingale's motion to substitute the December 7 pnroposal for 
the December 4 proposal. This would result in the Committee ohoosing 
which "vehicle" it wished initially to adopt. Following this, RAC members 
oould propose amendments to "perfect" the vehicle chosen, before the final 
vote on it. 
Dr. Baltimore "called the question." By a vote of nineteen in favor, two 
apposed, and no abstentions, the RAC agxreed to limit further debate and to 
vote on the motion to substitute the December 7, 1981, proposal for the 
December 4, 1981, proposal as the vehicle to be used for further amendments. 
Dr. Baltimore said that although, following this vote, any aspect of the 
winning proposal would be open for further amendments, he felt the vote 
should be viewed as a decision about whether "to go in the voluntary or 
nandatory direction." Dr. Nightingale reminded the RAC that her motion 
included the oonmitment to work towards future simplification of the Guide- 
lines. By a vote of sixteen in favor, five opposed, and no abstentions, 
the RAC adopted the substitute motion, thus, choosing the Gottesman proposal 
as the vehicle to be placed before the Connittee, open to further amendments. 
[341] 
