12 
Dr. Gartland said the Cabinet Council Working Group had not discussed NIH and 
NSF function as the December 31, 1984, Federal Register primarily applies to 
commercial proposals. He assumed the RAC would continue to function as in the 
past except for these areas vhere other agencies have authority. 
Mr. Mitchell said he would like to know how much muscle the Biotechnology 
Science Board will possess in implementing recommendations to the agencies, 
tar. McKinney said the Federal Register announcement indicated the agencies 
have final authority since review will be at the agency level . 
Dr. McGarrity said Dr. McKinney's interpretation conflicted with the following 
statement from the Federal Register which indicates the board will: 
"...receive from each agency a summary of each application relating to recom- 
binant RNA, recombinant ENA, or cell fusion which is submitted to one of 
the agency based scientific advisory committees; and, may make a request 
to the submitting agency that another committee of the parent board itself 
undertake a review of a specific proposal or class of proposals." 
Dr. McGarrity questioned how the board would resolve conflicting review recommend- 
ations from two different agencies if it did not have same authority. 
Dr. Friedman asked if the general public had come to terms with recombinant 
DNA technology. Dr. Gartland felt a consensus exists that laboratory research 
using recombinant ENA is not a burning issue. He said same individuals are 
concerned about deliberate releases of modified organisms, but he did not know 
if the general public is concerned. 
Dr. McKinney said the issues associated with the proposal of Ers . Steven Lind aw 
and Nickolas Panopoulos of the University of California, Berkeley, to field 
test modified microorganisms will continue to arise. In the Lindow/Pancpoulos 
case, the science was critically evaluated and field testing was approved. 
The issues subsequently raised were extraneous to scientific considerations. 
Dr. Gottesman said the working group could explicitly request that the oversight 
scheme be directed to commercial applications and not research phases of projects. 
She said the line between research and commercial applications had not, however, 
been clearly drawn in the December 31, 1984, Federal Register notice and questioned 
whether the working group should attempt to define research versus commercial 
applications . 
Dr. Handy suggested the working group recommend industrial research as well as 
academic research be overseen by the NIH under the NIH Guidelines. He thought 
the regulatory agencies might recommend this course cf action to industrial 
firms. 
Dr. Friedman felt the agencies, if they recommend industry abide by the NIH 
Guidelines, might feel they must formally adept the NIH Guidelines. This could 
limit N IH' s flexibility. 
[342] 
