10 
the E)i rector is weaker than language added to the Guidelines. Mr. Mitchell 
supported Ct. Martin's proposal. He said the stateront reveals the ooncem 
of the RAC, is em expression in the nature of a resolution, has impact, 
and is consistent with the Biological Weapons Convention. 
Mr. Thornton then called the vote on cr. Martin's substitute motion. By a 
vote of fourteen in favor, six apposed, and no abstentions, the substitute 
motion was adapted as the motion before the committee. Mr. Thornton then 
called the vote on the motion, as follovc: 
"The Reconbinant ENA Advisory Comittee advises the Director, 
NIH, that the existing treaty of 1972 (Convention on the Pro- 
hibition of Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteri- 
ological (Biological) and Tbxin Weapons and on Their Destruction] 
includes the prohibition on the use of recombinant ENA methodology 
for development of microbial or other biologic^d agents, or toxins, 
of types or in quantities that have no justification fior prophy- 
lactic, protective or peaceful purposes." 
By a vote of fifteen in favor, five apposed, and no abstentions, the RAC 
adopted the motion. 
Cfr. Ahmed requested that his vote against the motion be recorded. He said 
he voted against Dr. Martin's motion as he felt there were problems with 
it; nonetheless, he felt it is important to address the issue. He sug- 
gested that RAC address the question at future meetings. Dr. Goldstein 
also requested that his vote against the motion be recorded. He said he 
opposed the motion for the reasons stated by Dr. Ahmed and also because 
Dr. Martin's motion does not change the status quo . 
Dr. Nightingale suggested that the Director might have the resolution 
printed as part of the Guidelines. Mr. Thornton said any decision to 
publish the resolution was at the discretion of the Director. 
Dr. Goldstein asked if it was possible to vote on Dr. Holmes' motion. 
Mr. Thornton said that proceduradly a motion to reconsider the vote on 
Dr. Martin's motion would be in order until the meeting is adjourned. No 
motion to reconsider was offered at that time. 
IV. PROPOSED REVISICN OF APPENDIX A, SUBLIST F 
I3r. Friednan introduced the proposal (tab 1069) from Dr. Gary M. Dmny of 
the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. EXnny requested 
that Streptococcus agcdactiae be added to Appendix A, Sublist F. Dr. EXnny 
argued that S. a^lactiae should be added to this stblist as it exchanges 
genetic infonration with other Streptococcus species included in Sub list F. 
Dr. Gottesman noted that the current Guidelines specify PI containment for 
Dr. EXnny 's proposed experiments. She said that the data submitted by 
I3r. EXnny in support of this request are marginal; there is no evidence of 
[469] 
