14 
Dr. Beme questioned the language of Section I-B, Definition of Recxarbinant 
ENA Molecules , in the December 1 , 1981, proposal. Ihe relevant text of Section 
1-B reads as folloi«: 
■Synthetic ENA segrnents likely to yield a potentially harmful 
polynucleotide or polypeptide (e.g., a toxin or a pharmacologically 
active agent) sh£dl be considered as equivalent to their natural 
D(A counterpart. If the synthetic ENA segment is not expressed 
in vivo as a pol^ucleotide or polypeptide product, it is exempt 
"From the Guidelines." 
Dr. Qottesn«n pointed out that this is a reformulation of text which appears 
as Section III-E of the current (July 1, 1981) Guidelines. Dr. Berns sug- 
gested the real issue is vinether the synthetic fragment would produce a bio- 
logicedly active product; he proposed to amend the language by adding the 
phrase "biologicedly active" before the word "polynucleotide" in the last 
sentence. Er. Nightingale, who had proposed the motion being considered, and 
Er. Pedoroff, the seconder of the motion, accepted the amendment. 
Er. Saginor then proposed an amendment which would explicitly state that a 
working group be ^ppninted bo review and attempt to simplify further the 
Guidelines and to report to the RAC at a future meeting. Er. Nightingale, 
noting this intent was part of her origin^d. motion, accepted the amendment, 
as did Er. Fedoroff. 
Mr. Thornton czdled the question on Er. Nightingade's motion as modified by 
amendments. By a vote of seventeen in favor, three opposed, and no absten- 
tions, the RAC recoTunended adoption of the December 7, 1981, proposed with 
amendments. Mr. Thornton said a working group to refine the proposal would 
be designated at a later date, in accordance with the motion. 
Er. McGarrity asked the conmittee to state for the record that RAC sees no 
need for additional state and local ordinances governing reconbinant ENA 
activities. Dr. Libenian, the biological safety officer at MIT, advised 
against adoption of Ek. MoGarrity's statement as he viewed it as counter- 
productive. Based on his experience as a member of the Boston Biohazards 
Committee, he sees growing oorunurity interest in overseeing non-reconbinant 
biohazards as recombinant systems are being handled. 
Dr. Ahmed said he thought adoption of Er. MoGarrity's statement would be 
viewed as arrogance on the part of the RAC, saying "our views are gospel, 
and don't second guess us." 
Mr. Mitchell said that he is in sympathy with the motion since he is con- 
cerned about fragmentation at the state and local level. However, knovang 
the independence of legislative bodies, it might not be well taken. He 
suggested that if the statement were reworded it might be more successful. 
Er. McGarrity agreed and withdrw the proposal in order that revised text 
could be prepared for consideration later in the meeting. 
( 343 ) 
