4 
Dr. Bcdtimore noted that Mr. James George of the oh i ted States Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency, in a letter of Jine 8, 1982 (tab 1075), had suggested 
alternative language to the Goldstein-Novick proposal, as follows: 
"The use of recombinant DNAs for development of microbial 
or other biological agents, or toxins, of types or in 
quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, 
protective or other peaceful purposes, is prohibited." 
Dr. Baltimore said this suggested language, v^ich is taten largely from 
the treaty, would reinforce the Biological Weapons Convention. He moved 
acceptance of the language proposed by Mr. George. Mr. Mitchell seconded. 
Dr. Harris concurred with D:. Beiltimore's opinion; she added that the dis- 
cussion served a useful purpose by permitting a public expression of concern. 
Dr. B^Lltimore then suggested an amendment to his motion; he proposed 
that the phrase "the use of recombinant D^A methodology for development" 
replace the phrase "the use of reccmbinant DNAs for development." 
Mr. Mitchell agreed. 
Dr. Goldstein said he would not support Dr. Badtimore's proposal. He said 
he had suggested the proposed prohibition on the broadest moral and ethicad 
grounds. He said that RAC was responsible for overseeing recombinant ENA 
research and, therefore, of overseeing Department of Defense (DOD) endeavors 
in this area. He said that in 1980 DOD spent about $16 million on their 
biologiced research program. He said that the bulk of the money was spent 
on defensive systems. He said that a very thin line exists between offensive 
and defensive studies in biological warfare. 
Dr. Goldstein said the Biological Weapons Convention has no mechanism by 
which to monitor or enforce compliance. He recomted some alleged inci- 
dents in the Soviet thion and Cuba which, because no means of verification 
exist, could be interpreted as violations of the treaty. He argued that 
the world situation, which requires DOD to spend substantial funds on 
defensive systems, requires that RAC issue seme firm statement prohibiting 
the development of biological weapons using reccmbinant technology. 
Dr. Mason said the idea of deliberate construction and release of agents 
which cause disease and death is absolutely appalling. He feared, however, 
that the Goldstein-Novick amendment might create the presumption that 
the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention does not apply to reccmbinant DNA 
research. He felt, in addition, that the rraterial submitted by Drs. Goldstein 
and Novick almost by innuendo suggests that the Dhited States is violating 
the treaty. He said that RAC endorsement of the Goldstein-Novick amendment 
might be interpreted as RAC ewgreement with these innuendos. Dr. Mason 
said that if t^ Guidelines were to be amended to include some prohibition, 
he would prefer the George-Baltimore language bo the Goldstein-Novick proposal. 
However, he did not feel the Guidelines should be used to attempt to resolve 
this issue. He warned that incorporating language prohibiting biological 
warfare into the Guidelines could inhibit possible future moves to ma)ce 
the Guidelines voluntary or abolish the Guidelines. He said that if it is 
[ 463 ] 
