10 
emphasize ecological considerations in part III of the proposed document but 
asked if any environmental considerations could be posed in part II. 
Dr. Clowes said questions concerning the possibility of transfer of genes from 
the recombinant to other organisms miaht be posed in either part II or part 
III of the working group document. 
Dr. folin suggested questions about pathogenicity and ecological impacts should 
be addressed in part III of a working group document. Statements about risk 
assessment experiments should also be included in part III of the working group 
document . 
Dr. Pirone said part III of the document should request ecological information 
on the donor and recipient organisms to determine whether these organisms 
possess noxious characteristics. Dr. Gottesman questioned whether this informa- 
tion should be requested and evaluated for every case. She offered the example 
of transferring genes of the histidine pathways from one organism to another; 
she did not feel transfer of such genes would result in acquisition of noxious 
characteristics. She said she preferred the working group document emphasize 
the comparison between the parental organism and the modified organism. 
Dr. Colwell felt in some instances evaluation of the physiological and ecological 
role of the donated DNA would be important; e.g. , if the Bacillus thurengiensis 
bacillotoxin gene were introduced into Pseudomonas syringae . Dr. Pirone said 
the workinq group might also wish to consider the effect of introducing a 
plasmid into the modified organism; in this case, several functions should be 
evaluated. 
Dr. Hirano said the pertinent question is whether the investigator understands 
the ecology of the test system. Part III of a working group document should 
request information on the ecological role of the parental organism, the pro- 
dieted role of the modified organism, and the predicted role and function of 
the donated gene(s). 
Dr. Tolin said the working group should request that the submitter provide as 
much information as possible on the biology of the donor and recipient organisms. 
Dr. Gottesman agreed saying that in most cases this information will be the only 
data available on which to predict the probable outcome of a field test of a 
modified organism. 
Dr. Arntzen said it may not be possible to detail all of the introduced modi- 
fications if DNA from one organism is shotgun cloned into another organism. 
Dr. Pirone said in cases where organisms are constructed by shotgun cloning, 
knowledge of the characteristics of the parental organisms will be more important 
and more heavily weighted in reviewing the proposal . 
n r. Sharpies thought part III of the working group document should explicitly 
request information on expected or observed differences between the modified 
organism and the nonmodi fied parental organism. 
[ 20 ] 
