183 
1 of the better characterized systems. Second, they exempt 
2 self-cloning experiments. And third, they make provision 
3 for transfer of clone DNA back to its host of origin at 
4 a PI level. The only difficulty that has come to my 
5 attention is a general concern on the part of scientists 
6 on just how much documentation and time might be required 
7 to change the classification of a particular experiment 
8 or add new organisms to the list of gene exchanges. But 
8 at least, there is a nechanism for this change, and it is 
10 very good. 
11 In reference to the evidence upon which these 
12 revisions are based, I might say that I an in full 
13 agreement with the rationale set forth by the Workshop 
14 on Risk Assessment of Agricultural Pathogens, and feel 
15 that their findings and conclusions are based on sound 
16 principles of plant pathology. Specifically, they 
17 concluded that introduction of DNA from plant pathogens 
18 into E. col i K12 will not make it harmful to man, 
19 animals, or plants. 
20 Moreover, it should be noted that resistance 
21 to microorganisms among plants is more common than 
22 susceptibility, and that for an epidemic to occur, you 
23 must simultaneously have large numbers of susceptible 
24 plants in one location, just the right weather conditions, 
25 and high populations of the pathogen. As a result, 
[ 2 7 5 ] 
