14 
The working group then voted on the motion to change the position and title 
of Section IV -B and to add the title Containment to Section IV-C. By a vote 
of eleven in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions, the working group 
accepted this motion. 
Dr. Colwell suggested the word "numbers" be substituted for the word "amounts" 
in Section IV-A-1. Dr. Pramer moved Dr. Colwell's suggestion. By a vote of 
twelve in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions, the working group accepted 
this motion. 
Dr. Vidaver suggested a reporting period be included in Section IV-D, Monitoring ♦ 
She thought appropriate a requir orient that the investigator report to the 
working group or to RAC 120 days after termination of the experiment. 
Dr. Sharpies suggested the working group document might state RAC would set 
reporting periods on a case-by-case basis. She suggested the phrase "according 
to a schedule attached with the approval" might be added to Section IV-D. 
Dr. Tolin moved that the phrase "according to a schedule specified by RAC at 
the time of approval" be added to Section IV-D. Dr. Miller seconded the motion. 
By a vote of twelve in favor, none cpposed, and no abstentions, the working group 
approved the motion. 
Dr. Colwell asked whether Section II-C-1 might be expanded to read as follows: 
"Host range, including native as well as cultivated or domesticated hosts." 
Dr. Vidaver felt including such language would bias the investigator's thinking 
and limit the types of information the investigator would submit; the term 
'host range" includes plants, animals and other microorganisms. Dr. Miller 
thought the investigator should be aware of the host range of the modified 
organism. Dr. Colwell dropped his suggestion. 
Dr. Pramer wondered whether Section I, Summary , should ask if alternative 
methods of achieving the experimental objectives exist. Dr. McGarrity said 
traditionally the RAC has not considered whether alternative means might be 
employed to attain the objective. Dr. Gartland said in field testing oases, 
however, the working group and RAC might wash to consider risk management 
tradeoffs. 
Dr. Sharpies asked Dr. Gartland whether this type of information would be 
useful if the NIH were required to file EAs under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) . Dr. Gartland said alternative methods of achieving 
the experimental goal are not required in EAs. 
Dr. Tolin suggested the phrase "including potential benefits" be included 
in the language of Section I. 
Dr. Miller suggested italicizing the following sentence in the document's 
preamble: 
[309] 
