13 
Dr. Pimentel noved that the working group accept the proposed sentences. 
Dr. Clowes seconded the motion. 
Dr. Segal suggested the working group take a separate vote on the sentence 
proposed by Dr. Colwell and the sentence proposed by Dr. Gottesman. 
Dr. Pimentel agreed to permit a separate vote on the sentence preposed by 
Dr. Colwell and the sentence preposed by Dr. Gottesman. Dr. Clowes also agreed. 
Dr. Pimentel called the question. By a vote of nine in favor, one opposed, and 
one abstention, the question was called. 
j 
The vote was taken on the sentence preposed by Dr. Colwell. By a vote of nine 
in favor, one opposed, ard one abstention, the working group agreed to incorporate 
the sentence preposed by Dr. Colwell in the preamble of the draft document. 
Dr. McGarrity then asked the working group to consider the sentence proposed 
by Dr. Gottesman. Dr. Vidaver suggested the word "historical" be substituted 
for the word "special." Dr. Pirone reiterated his belief that the language 
preposed by Dr. Gottesman should not be included in the preamble of the working \ 
group document . ) 
(\ 
Dr. Pimentel called the question. By a vote of nine in favor, none opposed, 
and one abstention, the question was called. 
When the vote was taken, five members of the working group favored including 
the language proposed by Dr. Gottesman in the preamble, five members of the 
working group opposed inclusion of the language in the preamble, and one member 
of the working group abstained. Dr. McGarrity broke the tie by voting against 
the motion. He noted that his vote did not preclude the working group frem 
including the proposed language in seme other portion of the document. 
The first paragraph of the preamble reads as follows : } 
"Experiments in this category require specific review by the Reccmbinant 
DMA. Advisory Committee (RAC) and approval by the National Institutes of |> 
Health (NIH) and the Institutional Biosafety Carmittee (IBC) before initia- 
tion. The IBC is expected to make an independent evaluation, although this ; 
evaluation need not occur before consideration of an experiment by the RAC. H 
Relevant information on the preposed experiments should be submitted to the ! 
Office of Reccmbinant DN\ Activities (ORTA). The objective of this review 
procedure is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of testing of 
microorganisms that have been modified using reccmbinant DNA techniques." 
y 
Dr. McGarrity called the attention of the working group to the second paragraph 
of the preamble. The working group agreed to delete reference to "applications" 
from this paragraph so that the language of the first paragraph would correspond 
to the title of the document. 
Dr. Lacy moved that the working group accept the language of the second para- 
graph of the preamble as follows: t 
p 
[190] 
