-5- 
C) Reliance on private reports. 
The primary documents on which the PRG appears to be based are 
the Chairman's summary of the Falmouth meeting (it is clearly not based on 
the proceedings, which have substantial data supporting the need for 
containment and further study), an agricultural panel, and the so-called 
Ascot meeting. 
The Falmouth meeting, though useful, was limited in scope. Its 
composition was by invitation from an organizing committee intimately 
associated with recombinant DNA research. The meeting was not announced 
to the scientific community. Scientists not invited, but who may have been 
in possession of useful experience or data, had no opportunity to present 
their views. The number of people invited was very small. The subject 
matter was limited to recombinant DNA research in K12 strains, despite the 
fact that no laws or statutes prevent people from cloning in any strain of 
Interest. There was little discussion of nosocomial infections, of laboratory 
acquired infections, or of the problem of transfer of genes from K12 to wild 
strains outside the human gut. Nonetheless the Falmouth conference called 
for a whole series of risk assessment experiments, few of which have been 
done, and fewer reported on. Yet the PRG continuously fails to refer to this 
need for additional data. 
The Ascot Conference 
The revision of the guidelines downward for cloning of eukaryotic 
viral DNAs relies almost entirely on the "Report of the US-EMBO workshop 
to Assess Risks...." included as appendix E, page 33159 of the Federal 
Register. It is totally obscure to me what sector of the United States 
population, scientific or otherwise this group represented. One gets the 
impression that these scientists must have been representatives of the U.S. 
government. Yet there is no statement or announcement of who chose them 
or how they were chosen. In fact, they must have been an adhoc committee 
of individuals interested in changes in the guidelines, or else have been 
invited by EMBO. Either way they neither represented nor were accountable 
to any democratic body. Twenty seven scientists were in attendance, a 
remarkable small sampling. The group met in England, in private. The 
meeting was not announced to the virological or microbiological communities. 
In fact, they did not even notify the offical British body responsible for 
recombinant DNA policy. Gene Manipulation Advisory Group, of their meeting. 
The report was not published for comment in any scientific journal, even 
the Virology journals eg. Intervirology, J. Gen. Virology, J. Virology, 
Virology. 
The International Congress of Virology met from August 30 - September 
6 in Europe. Over 1,500 Virologists were in attendance from around the 
world. 
[A -299] 
