7 
to "permanency" as suggested by Dr. Mason, She said she would prefer RAC 
issue a broad statement v^ich avoided ambiguities about who is being 
defended or how. She suggested, in addition, that the section of the 
Guidelines dealing with the Federal Interagency Mvisory Committee on 
Reconbinant ENA Research be expanded; that Section should list the Inter- 
agency Committee membership (including DOD) and explicitly indicate that 
DOD, as well as the other members of the Ccmmittee, have agreed to abide 
by the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Reccrabinant Molecules. 
Dr. Nightingale also noted that the Commission on Life Sciences of the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has refused to conduct a study requested 
by the DOD via the Board on Army Science and Technology of the Conmission 
on Engineering and Technical Systems. Most of the work in that study was 
to be classified and the l^S Commission on Life Sciences has established 
the principle that it will not do classified work. 
Dr. Nightingale said the I®^S Conmission on Life Sciences was unwilling 
to conduct studies on biological warfare defense but agreed to cooperate 
with the Board of Army Science and Technology on a mycotoxin study. 
Mycotoxins were classified as chemicals. She asked Ec. Beisel to clarify 
his previous statement that they did no classified work. Dr. Baltimore 
asked Dr. Beisel to clarify how the medical defense program relates to 
classified work funded by DOD. Dr. Beisel explained that DOD funds three 
separate research areas; physical defense, medical defense, and intelli- 
gence gathering. Ihe physical defense aspects involve protective clothing, 
decontamination, early warning devices, air sampling, etc. Some of these 
materials and processes are classified. 
Dr. Bems, referring to the letter (tab 1076) of Dr. Krimsky, asked if 
DCD has more than one Institutional Biosafety Ccmmittee (IBC) registered 
with ORDA. Dr. Gartland replied that several IBCs at military installations 
are registered with CRDA; the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and 
U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the Naval 
Medical Research Institute, and the Uniformed Services Ihiversity of the 
Health Sciences. The Naval Biological Laboratories in California uses the 
IBC at the Ihiversity of California, Berkeley. 
Dr. Berns said that one person whan he greatly respected pointed out that 
RAC action could lead to the erroneous distinction that biological warfare 
employing recombinant DNA is worse than other biological warfare, and 
therefore, opposed the amendment. 
Dr. Holmes agreed it was important to avoid statements conflicting with 
the Biological Weapons Convention. However, he viewed language added to 
the Guidelines concerning biological warfare as potentially clarifying 
the Biological Weapons Convention. He agreed that some of the Biological 
Weapons Convention language is vague. He suggested that any language 
develcped by RAC should be clearer. He said he favors the language proposed 
by Mr. George, but suggested addition of the phrase "as potential biological 
weapons" after the word "toxins," 
[ 466 ] 
