5 
felt that RAC should do anything, a RAC resolution on the topic, independent 
and separate from the Guidelines would be more appropriate. Dr. McKinney 
agreed; he opposed both the Golds tein-Novick proposal and the Baltimore 
motion. Mr. Daloz said that he supported the language in Mr. George's letter. 
Dr. Ahmed quoted from Article I of the Convention: 
"Each. . .Party. . .undertakes never in any circumstance to develop, 
produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire or retain; 
(1) Microbial or other biological agents or toxins, whatever 
their origin or method of production, of t^^pes and in 
quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, 
protective or other peaceful purposes; 
(2) Weapons, equipment, or means of delivery designed to 
use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in 
armed conflict." 
Dr. Ahmed said that a key word, "research," was missing from the phrase "to 
develop, produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire or retain," He suggested 
that while the word "develop" might encompass research, "develop" may also 
be strictly interpreted as an industrial activity or as a large development 
program. He said that the George language, consistent with the Convention, 
may not cover research; therefore, the Baltimore motion would not encompass 
the total concern. Dr. Ahmed then asked the DOD representative vhether 
the Biological Weapons Convention applies to research activities, 
Mr. Thornton recognized Dr. Robert Mikulak of the Arms Control and Disarma- 
ment Agency. Dr. Mikulak said he wished to make several points. He said 
the Arms Control and Disarmament i^ency had no objection to the NIH incor- 
porating language dealing with biological weapons into the Guidelines for 
Research Involving Recombinant ENA Molecules. The Convention includes 
provisions under vhich governments may pass additional legislation or 
regulations to irrplement the Convention in their own territory. The Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency had, however, suggested language vhich the 
agency feels is more similar to the language of the Convention. Fewer 
problems of interpretation will arise with language similar to the Bio- 
logical Weapons Convention than might arise from substantially different 
language. He noted that the language proposed by the Agency had been 
moved by Dr. Baltimore. 
Dr. Mikulak said that the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency does not dis- 
tinguish between offensive and defensive biological weapons. Both are bio- 
logical weapons and, thus, prohibited by the treaty. The negotiated history 
of the Biological Weapons Convention makes absolutely clear that possession 
of biologioal weapons, even for defensive purposes, is prohibited; a party 
state is not permitted these weapons regardless of the stated intent. 
Dr. Mikulak said that concern had been expressed by Dr. Ahmed that 
Article I of the Convention might not prohibit research on biological 
weapons. He said that in his interpretation, the first Article of the 
[ 464 ] 
