14 
Dr. Nightingale then referred to Section III-C, Experiments that Require 
IBC Notice Simultaneously with Initiation of Experiments , llie first ser>- 
tence of this section re^s as follows: 
"Experiments not included in Section III-A, III-B, III-D, 
and subsections of these sections are to be considered in 
Section III-C." 
She said the working group was concerned with the language of this section. 
They noted that non-exempt experiments which might merit more stringent 
review by RAC or by the IBC prior to initiation of the experiment might 
not be adequately described in Sections III-A and III-B and, thus, would 
automatically fall into Section III-C. Ct. Nightingale suggested that 
a reference be added at the end of the first paragraph of Section III-C 
drawing the reader's attention to the first paragraphs of Section 
IV-A, whicSi emphasizes the responsibility of the institution and those 
associated with it. Dr. Nightingale said the clause emphasizing 
institutional responsibility in Section IV-A ought to read: 
"Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Institution and 
those associated with it to adhere to the intent of the 
Guidelines as well as to their specifics." 
The RAC agreed that the word "intent" should be substituted for the word 
"purpose" vhich was used in the version proposed by the working group. 
Dr. Ahmed agreed to add a reference to Section IV-A in Section III-C and 
to substitute the word "intent" for the word "purpose" in the language of 
Section IV-A. Dr. Bems agreed. 
Dr. Baltimore questioned why lo^risk oncogenic viruses had been classified 
in proposed Appendix B as Class 2 agents. He said most are not huiran patho- 
gens at £dl, and nany are innocuous. He felt that classifying low-risk 
oncogenic viruses as Class 1 agents and moderate-risk oncogenic viruses 
as Class 2 agents would be more reasonable. Dr. Bems did not agree 
canpletely; he felt some of the moderate-risk oncogenic viruses, such as 
Herpesvirus saimiri or EB virus, should be classified as Class 3 agents. 
Dr. Baltimore agreed that Herpesvirus saimiri might be classified as a 
Class 3 agent but felt Rous sarcona virus should be classified as Class 1. 
Dr. Bems agreed that the list warranted closer looking at, but he did not 
feel that this RAC meeting was the appropriate time for such a virus by 
virus review. Dr. McKinney pointed out that P2 provides the investigator 
with physical protection that is desirable and necessary for working with 
these agents. He suggested low-risk oncogenic viruses should be used 
under Class 2 containment conditions. Dr. Bciltimore noted that in the 
current Guidelines a listing is given in Appendix B of low-risk and 
moderate-risk oncogenic viruses, but no containment relative to the Guide- 
lines is specified. The proposed revised Guidelines include the state- 
ments that lew-risk oncogenic viruses "should be treated as Class 2 agents" 
and moderate-risk oncogenic viruses "should be treated as Class 3 agents." 
Therefore, this involves an increased stringency of the proposed revised 
Guidelines for these agents. 
[473] 
