6 
Dr. Colwell said he was troubled by the "probability" arguments advanced in the 
preamble; he said assigning a probability to concepts such as "uniqueness" is 
is very difficult. 
! Dr. Sharpies asked whether an organism would have to be functionally unique or 
genetically unique to meet the uniqueness requirements specified in the document. 
Dr. Levin asked whether those organisms vhich differ substantially frcm the parent 
organism and thus would be "more unique" would be of greater concern than those 
organisms vhich differ little frcm the parent and thus would be "less unique." 
Dr. Colwell said in general the organisms most likely to establish in an eco- 
system are either: (1) those most similar to organisms already in the ecosystem; 
or (2) those most dissimilar frcm organisms already in the ecosystem. He thought 
* the degree of uniqueness or difference of the modified organism frcm the parental 
organism would not help in making an ecological evaluation. Dr. Colwell felt 
this issue could not be treated in a few sentences in the preamble; the information 
requested in the body of the working group draft document would permit an evaluation. 
Dr. Gottesman argued that the preamble should address the important concept of 
"uniqueness;" if an organism created by reccmbinant DNA is not unique, application 
in the environment would not pose questions vhich should be dealt with by the 
working group. Dr. Lacy felt the document should not contain risk formulas 
vhich the working group would have to defend; he felt including risk formulas 
backed the working group into inflexible arguments as the probability that an 
organism applied in the environment cannot survive, reproduce, or disperse can 
never be zero. 
Dr. Lacy suggested the investigator should bear responsibility for evaluating 
the probability of risk. 
Dr. Pirone pointed cut that Mr. Rifkin had told RAC he wished to see the document 
contain numbers and threshold limits; since it is impossible to include numbers 
and limits at this time, the working group document should not prepound seme 
vague formulas for determining risk probabilities. 
Dr. Sharpies said she was uncanfortable with the concept that a snail alteration 
in an organism's gencme might be considered a trivial modification. She said 
the working group would have to decide whether the release of an organism should 
be carefully considered: (1) because the organism vas constructed using recom- 
binant DNA; or (2) because the organism is novel in the environment to which 
it is introduced. 
; Dr. Clcwes said "uniqueness" is the most important consideration. He felt the 
i question of whether an organism had been constructed by use of reccmbinant DNA 
techniques or by other techniques was of secondary importance. 
Dr. Gottesman thought the working group document should specifically address the 
concept of uniqueness; she felt that if an organism created in the laboratory 
is analogous to an organism in nature, it would be unreasonable to require an 
[ 183 ] 
