17 
Dr. Amtzen felt the term "relevant genetics" was vague and should be defined. 
Dr. Vidaver thought "relevant genetics" referred to characteristics pertinent 
in evaluating the organism's potential; the genetics relevant to the review 
would depend on the particular application. She said in some cases the complete 
genetic map mioht be relevant, in other cases it would not. lb require investi- 
gators in all cases to supply the genetic map of an organism might prohibit 
projects where this would not be pertinent information. 
Dr. Arntzen thought information on life cycles would be more pertinent and 
should be requested by the working group document. Dr. Tolin pointed out that 
copy number of introduced genes or plasmids might also be "relevant genetics." 
Other concerns might be: (1) the stability of the genome; (2) the stability of 
the organism; and (3) the ability of the organism to exchange or transfer 
genetic information. She suggested the document convey the idea that these 
considerations might be "relevant genetics" by citing than as examples. 
Drs. Gottesman and McGarrity thought the phrase "including but not limited to" 
miqht be followed in the document by Dr. Tolin's examples of "relevant genetics." 
Dr. Amtzen fe.lt the document should only request information on life cycles. 
He said terms such as "genetic transfer" are not defined and would not be 
found in textbooks. Dr. Clowes said requests for information about life cycles 
would not elicit information on genetics. He thought the investigator should 
submit genetic information relevant to the review. He said the working group 
can only suggest concepts that might be relevant in reviewing a proposal ; it 
cannot tell the investigator how to write the proposal. Dr. Tolin said the 
most important question is whether one can predict what changes an introduced 
gene will cause in the organism. 
Dr. Pramer felt the investigator, who must be knowledgeable about the sy start he 
proposes to study, will knew what aspects of the genetics of the modified organ- 
ism will be relevant. Dr. Levin agreed; he said genetic factors may affect 
the survival of the organism in the environment and are "relevant genetics . " 
Dr. McGarrity suggested the language of the preamble might indicate that the 
investigators should use their best judgment. 
Dr. Lacy suggested the term "nucleic acid" be substituted throughout the 
document for the term "DNA." 
Dr. Miller asked if information on shuttle vector construction would be requested 
by Section II-B-2 . Drs. Lacy and Gottesman said Section II-B-2 would request such 
information. 
Dr. Clowes asked if the document conveyed the working group's interest in know- 
ing how the DNA will be introduced into the vector (DNA or organism) before the 
vector is introduced into the organism. Dr. Gottesman agreed the document 
should elicit this information. 
Dr. Arntzen asked whether the presence of an antibiotic resistance gene on the 
plasmid vector would prevent approval of the project. Dr. Lacy said proposals 
would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, such as those 
[ 27 ] 
