Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee - 7/30/90 
investigator to respond to the reviews at the meeting, was 
punitive, and she moved to table the discussion. Dr. R. Murray 
seconded the motion to table. 
Whereupon, Dr. Walters called for a vote on the motion to table. 
The motion, requiring only a simple majority, passed by a vote of 
seven in favor, six opposed, and no abstentions. 
Dr. R. Murray suggested that the Chair appoint a subgroup of no 
fewer than three and no more than five members of the 
subcommittee to consider this issue and to report back with a 
motion at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the 
subcommittee . 
Dr. Anderson reminded the subcommittee that, if it were going to 
require final approvals from IRBs and IBCs from out in the field, 
certain problems will arise. Most IRBs and IBCs have no 
experience in reviewing human gene therapy protocols, and they 
will be hesitant to give final approval as distinguished from a 
provisional approval dependent on HGTS and RAC approval. 
Dr. Atlas suggested the matter of submission of human gene 
therapy protocols be discussed at the upcoming regional public 
hearings being held by the RAC. 
Dr. Leventhal suggested that, if the workload of the subcommittee 
was anticipated to increase, some thought be given to extending 
the length of meetings to more than one day or to having more 
frequent meetings. Dr. Wivel said that lengthening the meetings 
would be a better alternative, so as not to ask people to travel 
to Washington on a more frequent basis. 
Dr. Walters said he would appoint a subgroup to report back on 
the issue of the timing of protocol submission. He asked that 
members check the dates of future meetings in their materials and 
thanked them for their excellent work on the protocols and for 
staying late to complete the meeting. 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 14 
[ 103 ] 
