Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee - 10/16/90 
Dr. Parkman's terminology of an "identity crisis" was perhaps too 
strong and that what the RAC needs to do is a self-assessment 
because of changes in science, technology and society. In terms 
of the comments as to germ line human gene therapy, Dr. Childress 
pointed out that the Points to Consider have already been diluted 
from their original statements relative to germ line gene 
therapy. The current statements are vague and amorphous. He 
said this was of interest to members of the subcommittee. There 
is concern that now is the appropriate time for these discussions 
to begin. Public forums and discussions of precisely this issue 
had been planned in the past but had never come to fruition. 
Dr. Atlas noted that a point raised in New York City concerned 
the interactions of RAC with other Federal agencies as well as 
the adequacy of local IBCs, particularly in the human gene 
therapy area. In this type of research, the person submitting 
the protocol is often the only local expert. For this reason, it 
was felt that the Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee plays an 
important role as a national focus of expertise. 
Dr. McGarrity called on Dr. Erickson for a report of his comments 
on the regional meeting in Houston, Texas. Dr. Erickson noted 
that he was impressed by the lack of large attendance at these 
meetings. He felt that it pointed to the fact that the RAC was 
doing its job and that there was no outpouring of concern by the 
investigators in the field. He added that the majority of the 
meeting consisted of a discussion of a potential human gene 
therapy protocol being developed by an investigator at Baylor 
College of Medicine and he said it was clear that no one wanted 
to handle it locally. Dr. Erickson echoed Dr. Atlas' comments in 
regard to the need to republish the NIH Guidelines in a more 
readable form, preferably indexed for ease of use. 
Dr. Barbara Murray said that she felt the local IBC at Baylor 
College of Medicine was prepared to deal with the issues 
surrounding the potential human gene therapy protocol. However, 
they look to the RAC and the Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee for 
guidance. She added that the one investigator who did appear at 
the meeting felt the NIH Guidelines still had a role to play and 
that it should be maintained in some form or fashion. Dr. 
Clewell said that he agreed with the comments of Drs. Murray and 
Erickson, noting that this meeting was mainly a free flowing 
dialogue dealing with the issues of review of human gene therapy 
protocols. 
Dr. McGarrity called on Dr. Acosta to present her feelings on the 
meeting held on October 15, 1990 at the NIH in Bethesda. Dr. 
Acosta said she was unable to attend the meeting but that in 
reading the materials supplied for the meeting she had the 
feeling that both industry and academia felt comfortable having 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 14 
[353] 
