9 
Dr. Gottesman offered the following structural outline for those portions of a 
working group document requesting information on the parental organisms (donor 
and recipient) and on the modified organism: 
I . Summary of Intent 
A. Objectives 
B. Significance 
C. Uniqueness 
II. Derivation of Recombinant Organism 
A. Characterization of Parental Organism 
B. Molecular Biology of Modification 
1. Introduced Genes - Source 
2 . Construction Method 
3. Stability in Laboratory/Expression 
C. Uniqueness/Laboratory Containment 
Dr. Pramer said part I of Dr. Gottesman' s outline would essentially request a 
narrative of intent. Dr. Hirano suggested part I should request a brief 
description of: (1) the genetic manipulations used to construct the organism; 
(2) the role of the parental organism in the environment; and (3) the predicted 
role of the modified organism in the environment. 
Dr. Gottesman said item A of part II of her preposed outline would request 
information on the characteristics of the parental organism, (i.e., the organism 
that is the source of most of the genome). Item B of part II would request 
information on the characteristics of the modified organism. She said the 
modified organism would implicitly be compared to the parental organism. 
Dr. Clowes suggested a working group document should have a section dealing 
with the parent organism, a section dealing with the modified organism, and a 
section requesting a comparison of the modified organism to the parent. 
Dr. Hirano said detailed information on the construction of the modified organ- 
ism should be requested in part II of a working group document. Dr. Vidaver 
suggested information on the expression of the DMA insert should be requested 
in part II of a working group document. 
Dr. Colwell suggested ecological considerations be grouped in a separate 
part III of a working group document. Dr. Gottesman said she preferred to 
[ 19 ] 
