9 
cr. Berns said that if one assumes greater risk is associated vdth recombinant 
EfA or unanticipated unknown risk is possible, data on risk must be generated, 
lb obtain such data, epidemiological studies would be performed. Ch the other 
hand if one believes there is no special risk, then the procedures already 
followed by industry are reasonable and these pirocedures are the basic suggestions 
of the Crc/NIQSH report. Dr. Bems then cadled the vote on Ct. MdCinney's motion. 
By a vote of fi\« in favor, one opposed, and two abstentions. Dr. McKinney's 
recommendation to forward the C3X:/^I06H report to the RAC was accepted. 
Or. Miller then moved the following resolution; 
"Reccmbinant CNA technology constitutes a very small subset of industrial 
microbiolcjgy. It affords no characteristics unique to itself likely bo 
provide systenatic or unique hazards, and, therefore, should not be 
subjecrt bo special scrutiny or treatment." 
Dr. Bems called the vote on Cr. Miller's motion. On the first vote, three 
menbers of the working group supported the motion, three members were opposed, 
and one member abstained. The chairman then c^d.led a revote in which three 
menbers were in favor, three members were opposed and one member abstained. 
The chairman then broke the tie by voting in favor of the resolution. By a 
vote of four in favor, three opposed and one abstention the motion was accepted. 
Dr. McKinney felt that while the working group should oonvey the idea that 
recombinant DMA technolc3gy nay not entail any extr^ordinary hazard beyond 
those found in other fermentation technologies, it should be recxagnized that 
some hazards are associated with any technology. Dr. Mason said the CDC/^IOSH 
report was well done. He suggested that a preamble be added to the docximent. 
[ 495 ] 
