STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 
•Sr.WFOKH I'nivkksiiv Sciiooi of Medicine 
heptrinent Mrdictnr 
14 April 1978 
William J. Gartland, Jr., Ph.D. 
Director, Office of Recombinant DNA Activities 
National Institute of Health 
Betnesda, MD 20014 
Dear Bill: 
In reviewing the material accompanying your memorandum of April 11 
to the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, I noted that the proposal 
that I made earlier to Don Frederickson in connection with approval of 
non-E . coli host-vector systems has not been included for review by the 
committee. I have enclosed a copy of my letter of November 9 to Dr. 
Frederickson and I ask now that the Advisory Committee consider the 
following points at their upcoming meeting: 
(1) Many of the practical benefits of recombinant DNA research will 
depend on the ability to manipulate genes within organisms that produce 
medically and biologically important products such as antibiotics. 
(2) In revising the guidelines, the authors of the section on "other 
host vector systems" seem to have given little consideration to the 
importance of being able to manipulate the genes of such species per se , 
and have instead dealt with other host vector systems as an alternative 
to EM_ coli for cloning the genes of higher organisms. 
(3) The revised guidelines state that cloning in host vector systems 
other than EM_ coli must use strains that have "low potential for survival 
in their natural environment" regardless of the lack of pathogenicity of 
the recipient species or the nature of the natural environment of that 
species. This appears to be a direct transfer, with little additional 
thought, of the considerations that pertain to the use of E. coli K12 for 
recombinant DNA experiments. 
(4) In granting approval of Saccharomyces strains as recipients for 
cloned DNA, there was no requirement that the strains have "low potential 
[Appendix A— 309] 
i 
