29 
and lung diseases and cancer. He said these diseases have an environmental 
ccnponent as well as a genetic component. Mr. Rifkin said he would be 
thrilled if NIH money were spent studying hew the environment triggers 
genetic diseases rather than on research on gene transfers. 
Mr. Mitchell asked Dr. Bowman whether environmental factors are a cause of 
cystic fibrosis. Dr. Bowman said environmental factors are not a cause; 
cystic fibrosis is a genetic illness. 
Dr. Gottesman said Mr. Rifkin' s characterization of RAC's activities as 
always giving the go-ahead is untrue as RAC has often turned down requests 
to proceed. Dr. Gottesman asked Mr. Rifkin to be honest and accurate in 
his portrayed, of RAC and RAC's activities, and of the question currently 
before RAC. In this instance, a single gene will be moved from one organism 
to another; all sheep are not about to be turned into giant sheep nor are 
people with bat wings going to be created. 
Mr. Richard Pollack identified himself as having been associated for a two 
year period with Sandia Laboratories as a consultant to the Nuclear Regula- 
tory Ccrrmission (NRC), as having served with the NRC on the Three Mile 
Island investigation, and as being "close" to Mr. Rifkin. 
Mr. Pollack said Mr. Rifkin was asking: 
"...if the basic question of the environmental inpact. . .has been ignored 
by this ccrrmittee . . .What kind of road are we moving down? ...with such 
a powerful tool with such great consequences, not to have that kind of 
basic methodology to assure the public is very disconcerting, whether 
on a concrete issue or on a less abstract issue...." 
Dr. Fox asked why others seem to think there is an ethical issue to be dis- 
cussed. He said, "Surely there is not some dialectical tension here that 
cannot be reconciled, that somewhere between us is meaning and substance 
to the reality around us." 
Dr. McKinney reminded the proponents of what their proposal entailed; a com- 
plete prohibition of certain types of research. He then called the question. 
By a vote of nineteen in favor, two opposed, and one abstention, the RAC 
agreed to close debate. 
Dr. Gottesman then repeated the language of her modified motion: 
"That RAC reject the amendments proposed by Mr. Rifkin and published in 
the Federal Register of September 20, 1984, Section II. Both the 
importance of this class of experiments in current scientific research 
and the long-term possibilities for treatment of human and animal 
disease and the development of more efficient food sources make it a 
moral imperative that we strongly oppose the blanket prohibition of 
this class of experiments." 
[161] 
