17 
Ms. King then iroved that "the RAC specifically call to the Director's atten- 
tion that the action t^en on the Deceniber 7, 1981, proposal results from 
anedysis emd consideration of the report entitled 'Evaluation of the Risks 
Associated with Heconbinant ENA Research' prepare! by the Working Group 
on Revision of the Guidelines. Hie vote on the Decenber 1 , 1981, proposal 
inqplements the Working Group report." 
By a vote of nineteen in favor, none opposed, and one abstention, the 
RAC adopted Ms. King's motion as a si±>stitute for the previous motion. 
Mr. Thomtc»i then ruled that unless there were objection (vhich there was 
not) , the substitute motion is adopted by inanimous consent as the 
reconmendation of the RAC. 
Following an wemight recess, Mr. Hiomton called the committee to order 
to consider language develc^ied by Dr. McGarrity and Mr. Mitchell regarding 
local and state legislation. Mr. Mitchell moved acceptance of the follcwirg 
language: 
"Whereas RAC has voted to reconrumend significant reductions in 
mandatory guidelines regarding recombinant DNA activity, and 
"Whereas RAC in establishing said reduced guidelines did so 
based upon collective credible scientific knowledge and 
experience, and 
"Viiereas RAC believes it to be in the best interest of recombinant 
DNA activity to have a central arena for the dissemination of 
information and oontinuous review, and 
"Whereas RAC believes the existence of ini form guidelines thereby 
establishes certainty and clarity in the scientific commmity, and 
"Whereas RAC believes it would be detrimental to the advancement 
of recombinant ENA activity to have fragmentation of guidelines 
across the country, 
"Hierefore, be it resolved that RAC strorgly reconmends that local 
and state governments defer to the NIH Guidelines if enacting 
legislation governing recombinant ENA activity, unless it clearly 
establishes by credible scientific evidence that unique risk in 
fact exists in their particular jurisdiction." 
Dr. McGarrity seconded the motion. He said the RAC action taken yesterday 
on the December 7, 1981, proposal would significantly relax the Guidelines. 
When considered in the context of possible additional local legislation, 
Mr. Mitchell's statement expressed RAC's judgement that the NIH Guidelines 
are the best possible approach at this time. It would be comterproductive 
for RAC to strip away bureaucracy and paperwork at the national -level, only 
to have more bureaucracy and paperwork added at the state and local level. 
[346] 
