15 
"Information on all these points will not be necessary in all cases 
but will depend on the prcperties of the parental organism and the 
effect of the modification on these prcperties." 
Dr. Clowes said Section III-C-5 is not clear; he asked which ecological 
characteristics are being referred to in the statement "...such as those listed 
in Section III above." He suggested Section III-C-5 should read as follows: 
"Frequency with which populations undergo shifts in important ecological 
characteristics such as those listed in Section III-C-1 through Section 
III-C-4 above." 
Dr. Clowes asked what "carriers of pathogens" refers to in Section III-C-3. 
That section reads as follows: 
"Pathogenicity, infectivity, toxicity, virulence, or carrier of pathogens." 
Dr. Vidaver suggested the word "vector" should be added to Section III-C-3. 
"Vector" has a specific meaning in pathogenicity and that meaning should be 
included in this section. Dr. Tolin explained that a vector might be either 
the plasmid or virus carrying the recombinant DNA, or the carrier of a pathogen. 
She suggested the word "vector" used as a carrier of a pathogen be included in 
this section. Dr. Arntzen moved the four different suggestions by Drs. Tolin, 
Miller, and Clowes. Dr. Pramer seconded the motion. 
By a vote of eleven in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions, the working 
group accepted the motion. 
Dr. Vidaver suggested Section II-B-2-b be modified to read as follows: 
"Describe the method of introduction of the vector carrying the insert 
into the organism to be modified and the procedure for selection of 
the modified organism. " 
Dr. Sharpies moved the preposed language. Dr. Fedoroff seconded the motion. 
By a vote of eleven in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions, the working 
group accepted the motion. 
Dr. Miller said he wished to add an asterisk to the working group document; the 
asterisk would indicate the working group document would not apply to protocols 
which are being reviewed by other agencies. He felt working group reviews 
would be duplicative and unnecessary if the protocols are already being adequately 
reviewed by another agency. 
Dr. Sharpies did not think the working group should discuss this issue. Such 
an issue might be discussed by the RAC, but would ultimately be decided by the 
Director, NIH. 
Dr. Miller suggested the working greup could recommend his proposal to the 
Director, NIH. 
[310] 
