5 
o A request to field test com plants ( Zea mays ) which had been transformed 
by com DNA or modified com sequences cloned in coli or cerevisiae 
host-vector systems. 
o A request to field test tomato and tobacco plants transformed with bacterial 
and yeast DMA. Pollen would be used to mediate transformation of the plants 
with plasmid vectors. 
o A request to construct and release in the environment Pseudomonas syringae 
pv. syringae and Erwinia herbicola to biologically control frost damage 
in plants. All or part of the genes involved in ice nucleation would be 
deleted . 
Dr. Gartland added that the NIH is currently considering two proposals from 
private concerns; one proposal frcm Cetus Madison, Inc. (now Agracetus Corpora- 
tion) , to field test disease resistant plants, and a proposal from Advanced 
Genetic Sciences, Inc., to test ice nucleation minus Pseudomonas syringae . 
Dr. Gartland said the Foundation on Economic Trends filed suit in September 
1983 against HHS and NIH claiming that NIH had not acted in compliance with 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) statutes when approval was granted 
under the NIH Guidelines to field test genetically modified com plants and 
genetically modified Pseudomonas syringae and Erwinia herbicola . The Foundation 
on Economic Trends asked for an injunction to prevent the University of 
California, Berkeley, from field testing modified Pseudomonas syringae . The 
injunction was granted in May 1984 and applies to projects funded by the govern- 
ment such as the University of California project, but does not apply to projects 
financed by private concerns applying for NIH review under the voluntary com- 
pliance program of the NIH Guidelines. Dr. Gartland said the Foundation on 
Economic Trends is appealing this ruling. The NIH and the University of 
California are appealing the injunction. 
Dr. Gartland said the three field testing experiments approved by the NIH are 
effectively enjoined and cannot proceed at this time. 
Dr. McKinney, a member of the RAC, spoke to the working group from the floor. 
He felt a set of criteria for field testing situations should be develcped for 
microorganisms . 
Dr. McGarrity suggested the working group first evaluate as a whole the prelim- 
inary document (Attachment IV) drafted by the subgroup and then proceed through 
the document point-by-point. 
Dr. Gottesman said the draft document develcped by the subgroup (Attachment 
IV) contained useful points but thought a working group document should: (1) 
emphasize information requests dealing with the unique characteristics of the 
modified organism; (2) point out that Section III-A-2 of the NIH Guidelines 
supercedes other sections of the NIH Guidelines; (3) request an e/aluation of 
the containment level which would be operative for work with the modified 
organism at the laboratory scale; and (4) indicate that an overall probability 
[ 15 ] 
