14 
Dr. Levin said ccnrnunication exists between the Working Group on Release into 
the Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. He had 
participated in writing the Gore Report as a staff member of the Subcarmittee 
on Investigations and Oversight, and Dr. Sharpies was now a staff member of that 
subcarmittee. He also pointed out that Mr. Gore is running for election to the 
Senate and will not chair the Subcommittee on Investigations art! Oversight after 
the election, tie added that Senator Durenberger recently (Septeirber 25 and 27, 
1984) held hearings on the potential environmental consequences of genetic 
engineering. He felt a report from the Subcommittee on Toxic Substances and 
Ehvironnental Oversight of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment 
and Public Works would supercede the Gore Report. 
Dr. Miller said the primary question is vh ether what he considered such an 
amateurish document as the Gore Report will go unchastized. He felt that 
simply sending minutes of meetings to Representative Gore would not be sufficient. 
He pointed out that the Gore Report is being cited. 
Dr. McGarrity felt the opinion that the document was amateurish had been voiced 
at working group and RAC meetings and would be part of the minutes of those 
meetings . 
The working group supported Dr. McGarrity 's suggestion that a reply to the Gore 
Report consist primarily of: (1) minutes of the April 9, 1984, working group 
meeting; (2) the June 1, 1984, RAC meeting; and (3) the responses of the working 
group to the recarmendations of Gore Report. Dr. Arntzen so moved. Dr. Sharpies 
seconded the motion. By a vote of ten in favor, none opposed, and one abstention, 
the working group accepted the motion. 
Development of a Points to Consider Document for Microorganisms (con't) 
Dr. Tolin asked Dr. McGarrity if the working group was obligated to generate a 
points to consider document for microorganisms at the October 5, 1984, meeting 
to send to the October 29, 1984, RAC meeting. Dr. McGarrity replied that vhile 
it would be nice to have such a document, it is not necessary. He would, in 
any case, report to RAC at the October 29, 1984, meeting on the working group's 
progress. Dr. Gartland pointed out that RAC had not directed the working group 
to develop a guidance document for field testing of modified microorganisms, 
and no proposals involving field testing have been submitted for RAC review 
at the October 29, 1984, meeting. The working group will have time to develop 
a document as the next RAC meeting will probably be scheduled for spring 1985. 
Dr. Arntzen thought the working group should develop a points to consider 
document for microorganisms as rapidly as possible; he felt it was unfair not 
to offer investigators this guidance as soon as possible. 
Dr. Gottesman asked if this points to consider document for microorganisms 
would influence the outcome of the lawsuit filed by the Foundation on Econcmic 
Trends. Dr. Gartland said the suit contended that NIH had not complied with 
the NEPA provisions. The action-forcing provision of NEPA requires an assessment 
[ 24 ] 
