9 
Mr. Thornton said that Dr. Holmes should indicate whether the statement 
would be included in the Guidelines or sent as advice to the NIH Director. 
Dr. Holmes replied that he moved the language as an amendment to the 
Guidelines. Dr. McGarrity seconded the motion. 
Dr. Martin then proposed a substitute motion in the form of a resolution 
not to be included in the Guidelines: 
"The Reconbinant ENA Mvisory Conmittee advises the Director, NIH, 
that the existing treaty of 1972 [Convention on the Prohibit ion 
of Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological 
(Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Iheir Destruction] includes 
the prdiibition on the use of recombinant ENA methodology for 
develc^ment of microbial or other biological agents, or toxins, 
of types or in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, 
protective or peaceful purposes." 
Dr. Scandalios seconded the motion. 
Dr. Ahmed moved to amend Dr. Martin's substitute motion by eliminating all 
of Dr. Martin's proposal and adding the following language as originally 
pressed by Drs. Novick and Goldstein to Section I of the Guidelines: 
"Construction of biological weapons by molecular cloning 
is prohibited." 
Ihe motion was seconded by Dr. Goldstein. 
Dr. Baltimore characterized Dr. Ahmed's motion as dangerous in its assump- 
tions. He felt Dr. Ahmed's motion implies that the Biological Wieapons 
Convention is ambiguous. Dr. Baltimore felt that the treaty was very 
precisely written, with no indication of loopholes or ambiguities throu^ 
which the methodologies of recombinant DMA can be used for the development 
of biological weaponry. He felt including the Golds tein-Novick language 
in the Guidelines could undermine the treaty obligations of the Uhited 
States and raise the presunption that the use of recombinant DNA technology 
in developing biological we^x)ns is permissible. Dr. McKinnq^ called the 
question. Dr. Berns seconded. By a vote of nineteen in fawr, one opposed, 
and no detentions, the question was called. 
The vote then occurred on the amendment to the substitute as offered by 
Dr. Ahmed. By a vote of two in favor, seventeen opposed, and one 
abstention, the RAC refused Dr. Ahmed's proposed amendment. 
Mr. 'niomton then called for discussion on Dr. Martin's substitute motion. 
Dr. Holmes said the major difference between Dr. Baltimore's earlier motion 
viiich the RAC had defeated and ES:. Martin's motion is that Dr. Baltimore's 
motion had involved insertion of text into the Guidelines and Dr. Martin's 
motion is a resolution to the Director. Dr. Holmes opposed Dr. Martin's 
motion; he said the language is vague and a RAC recemmendation advisory to 
[ 468 ] 
