16 
Dr. Amtzen asked if the working group should state its perception of its role. 
Dr. Lacy said the working group should state its views in order to make them 
known and to participate in the discussion. 
Dr. Arntzen thought the working group should coordinate its activities with the 
other Federal agencies. Dr. Miller said RAC's activities cannot be wholly 
consistent with the activities of other Federal agencies as RAC does not operate 
under the statutes that govern the FDA, the USDA, or the EPA. 
Dr. McGarrity called the attention of the working group to the documents devel- 
oped over lunch; (1) a working group draft document (Attachment XI) which had 
been generated by the subgroup (the Gottesman group); (2) an alternative 
outline for part III of the document (Attachment XII) by Dr. Rissler; and (3) 
a proposed outline for a guidance document for submissions involving field 
testing of microorganisms (Attachment XIII) which Dr. Amtzen had canposed 
during lunch. 
Dr. Amtzen explained his proposed format for a points to consider document 
for microorganisms (Attachment XIII). He said his format was totally different 
from that proposed by the Gottesman group (Attachment XI); he said his document 
provides a checklist while the Gottesman document describes important points 
but does not provide a checklist. He thought the checklist was an important 
feature of his proposed format. Dr. Gottesman believed the document (Attachment 
XI) generated by the Gottesman group would include a checklist. 
Dr. Clowes suggested the working group consider developing an alternative title 
for the draft document; he felt the word "release" has a perjorative flavor. 
He suggested the word "introduction" might be pref err able . Dr. Sharpies said 
the word "introduction" has a perjorative connotation to ecologists. Dr. Pirone 
suggested the word "introduction" might be less scary to the general public 
than to ecologists. Dr. Vidaver said the working group should choose language 
which does not have a perjorative connotation to anyone. 
Dr. Colwell suggested the phrase "environmental application" might be used. 
Dr. Hirano suqgested the title micht be "submissions involving environmental 
testina of ornanisms constructed using recombinant INA." 
Dr. McGarrity asked the working group to consider the body of the proposed 
Gottesman document (Attachment XI). Dr. Arntzen thought the definition of 
"parent" in his proposed document (Attachment XIII) would be useful. 
Dr. Pirone felt Dr. Arntzen' s definition would not apply in all cases. 
Dr. Vidaver said Dr. Amtzen 's definition would not extend to viruses. 
Dr. Gottesman thought a footnote could be added to the Gottesman document 
(Attachment XI) to define terms such as "parental organism" and "donor 
organism." Dr. McGarrity agreed these terms must be clearly defined in the 
working group document. Dr. Amtzen suggested the phrase "direct descendant" 
should also be defined. Dr. Pirone thought "parental organism" should be 
defined as the contributor of the major portion of the modified organism's 
qenane . 
The workinq group then proceeded to develop Part II of the Gottesman document. 
Dr. Gottesman said Section II-A-2 of the Gottesman document should read; "Relevant 
genetics and information on genetic transfer capability and reproduction cycle." 
[ 26 ] 
