Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee - 10/16/90 
preliminary review of the regional hearings conducted by the RAC. 
He noted that tabs 1402/1, 1403, 1404, 1408, and 1411 contained 
relevant information. 
V. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE REGIONAL HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE 
RECOMBINANT DNA ADVISORY COMMITTEE! 
Dr. McGarrity introduced the topic noting that the RAC had 
conducted seven regional hearings and that Dr. Wivel and he had 
attended all seven hearings, while other members of the RAC and 
ORDA staff had been in attendance at meetings which took place at 
locations convenient for their attendance. He noted that a 
number of individuals, as well as organizations and commercial 
firms had submitted both formal written statements as well as 
oral testimony at these hearings. He noted that this was to be a 
preliminary report and that a more in-depth report would be 
presented to the RAC at its February 4, 1991 meeting. 
Dr. McGarrity said he felt the meetings had been a truly valuable 
educational experience, providing a public perception of the RAC 
and its work. The testimony provided some suggestions of where 
the RAC should go in the future, which could not have been gotten 
in any better means than meetings such as these. 
Dr. Wivel said that what he wanted to present was a general 
composite response to the five questions which were published for 
general comment before the regional meetings. He noted that a 
broad range of people and organizations were heard from and noted 
that among some of the most interested persons in all of the 
meetings were the biological safety officers. 
Dr. Wivel then went on to question one: 
1. "Should the definition of recombinant DNA be 
modified to encompass the newer techniques in 
molecular genetics and should the RAC increase its 
purview in keeping with this change in 
definition?" 
He noted that about half the people who presented opinions on 
this question favored modifying the definition and many felt that 
this would not necessarily increase the purview of the RAC since 
many of these experiments would still be exempt. However, about 
half of those persons who testified also felt there was no need 
to change the definition. 
Dr. Wivel continued with question two: 
2. "Do the newer techniques in molecular genetics 
pose any new risks not seen with the established 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 14 
[347] 
