7 
investigator to perform every test listed in the working group document. 
Dr. Gottesman agreed that a single gene modification might introduce a major 
change in the organism and should be considered from that perspective. She 
also agreed the working group should be concerned if the engineered organism 
displays unexpected properties due to the modification of its genetic material. 
Dr. Jane Rissler of the EPA worriered whether the working group document should 
indicate the means by which "uniqueness" would be determined; would uniqueness 
be determined by comparison to the nonmodified parents? Dr. Rissler emphasized 
that the working group evaluation would not be based solely on the molecular 
biology of the introduced nodi ficat ion. 
Dr. Mark Segal of the EPA pointed out that uniqueness does not influence the 
three inport ant ecological considerations of: (1) establishment and survival; 
(2) exposure to susceptible hosts and ecosystems; and (3) expression of an 
ef feet . 
Dr. Pramer said the investigator must be cognizant of the molecular genetics 
of the organism; in addition, information from contained systems such as growth 
chambers and greenhouses should be available and could help evaluate uniqueness. 
Dr. Pirone suggested the working group document should explicitly state that 
information on the molecular biology, data frem contained systems, and informa- 
tion frern other field tests would be required for review. Dr. Colwell said the 
preamble to Section III, Environmental Considerations, refers to these requirements 
and indirectly addresses the issue of uniqueness. Dr. Pirone agreed that the 
preamble to Section III did indirectly address these issues but felt the document 
should explicitly state such data requirements. 
Dr. Clowes felt the investigator would not need to address Section III of the 
document if molecular biology considerations indicate the organism is identical 
to an organism vhich exists in nature. He thought the ice nucleation bacteria 
constructed by Drs. Lindow and Fdnopoulos of the University of California, 
Berkeley, would fall into this category. 
Dr. Sharpies asked whether the organism must be functionally identical or 
genetically identical to organisms in nature in order to fall into this 
category. 
Dr. McGarrity called the attention of the working group to the first three para- 
graphs of the preamble. He noted that the first paragraph now included the 
language proposed by Dr. Sharpies and adopted by the working group. Dr. Vidaver 
called the attention of the working group to the second paragraph of the preamble. 
She suggested the first sentence of the second paragraph should read as follows: 
These following 'Points to Consider' have been developed by the Working 
Group on Release into the Environment as a suggested list for scientists 
preparing proposals on release into the environment of microorganisms, 
including viruses." 
[ 184 ] 
