9 
Dr. McGarrity drew the attention of the working group to Section V-A— 4 vhich 
reads as follows: 
"A worst-case scenario (e.g., increased survival, reproductive capacity, 
dispersal, transfer of the genetic modification to other organisms, etc.) 
would predict that no risks greater than those caused by the normodified 
organism will occur." 
Or. Fedoroff said she did not understand the logic of requesting a worst case 
scenario; would the investigator construct such a hypothetical situation to 
prove it would not occur. She thought this requirement would bias investigators' 
responses . 
Dr. Colwell said Section V-A-4 should request an evaluation of the possibility 
of adverse effect rather than an attempt to concoct a worst case scenario. 
Dr. Gottesman thought requesting a worst case evaluation would create problems; 
someone will always conceive of a different worst case scenario than the invest- 
igator or the working group. 
Dr. Pimentel pointed out that the EPA uses worst case analysis in evaluating 
pesticides or toxic substances. He said this exercise provides useful informa- 
tion and perspective. 
Dr. Pramer pointed out that evaluating field tests of modified organisms differs 
from evaluating the effects of pesticides or toxic chemicals. Pesticides gener- 
ally present real risk; field testing of modified organisms presents an evalua- 
tion of hypothetical risk. He thought using the words "worst case scenario" 
would create anxiety and invite individuals to engage in creative imagery 
attempts to discuss risk. 
Dr. Miller said worst case scenarios provided useful information in some risk 
evaluations. He gave as an example the calculations performed at the Pasadena, 
California, conference in 1980 on maximum potential foreign protein production 
by an engineered microorganism. [Executive Secretary's Note: The Workshop on 
Reccmbinant PNA Risk Assessment was held on April 11-12, 1980, and sponsored 
by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.] Dr. McGarrity 
said many additional factors must be considered in evaluating environmental 
releases of engineered organisms than were considered by the participants at 
the Pasadena meeting. 
Drs . Fedoroff and Gottesman suggested the section referring to the worst case 
scenario be deleted from the document. Dr. Fedoroff moved that Section V-A-4 
be deleted. Dr. Pirone seconded the motion. By a vote of seven in favor, 
three opposed, and one abstention, the working group agreed to delete Section 
V-A-4 . 
Dr. McGarrity called the attention of the working group to the section 
entitled The Nature of the Test . Dr . Tolin said the construction of this 
section parallels the construction of the section The Nature of the Organism . 
Dr. Tolin said Section B of Section V requests information on the conditions 
[ 304 ] 
