Dr. McGarrity called the meeting to order and summarized the charge to the 
workinq group. 
With regard to the term "deliberate release," Dr. Gottesman stated that contain- 
ment was never assumed to be absolute, i.e., there may be sere accidental 
release fran contained laboratory situations. 
Dr. Gottesman cited Appendix L of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant ENA Molecules as a model. This 
appendix sets out criteria for release of certain plants which do not require 
review by the full Recombinant ENA Advisory Committee (RAC). She said a series 
of such appendices might be developed. 
Dr. Pramer said that use of the term "deliberate release" is unfortunate as it 
seems to convey maliciousness. 
C*. Vidaver proposed a definition for deliberate release. 
Dr. Gottesman proposed that there might be two classes of release vhich one is 
not particularly worried about: (1) organisms that do not spread beyond a 
test plot, and (2) organisms that one is not worried about even if they do 
spread. It is probably not possible to encompass these concepts in a short 
definition. 
The working group considered alternative wording for "deliberate release into 
the environment." Alternatives terms included "testing in the environment," 
"applications outside the laboratory," "planned release," and "planned 
introduction." 
Dr. Landy moved that "non- laboratory research and applications involving recom- 
binant DMA organisms" replace "deliberate release into the environment of any 
organism containing recombinant ENA." There was no second for this motion. 
IX:. Fedoroff moved that "environmental applications of recombinant DNA-containing 
organisms" be substituted for "deliberate release into the environment of any 
organism containing recombinant DNA." Dr. Fedoroff' s motion failed by a vote 
of four in favor, eight opposed, and one abstention. 
Dr. Landy then moved that the working group table the discussion of deliberate 
release and consider the definition of recombinant ENA. The motion passed by 
a vote of nine in favor, none opposed, with two abstentions. 
E)r. Gottesnan then drew a schematic of two kinds of experiments and asked 
whether the working qroup felt that these cases would fall under the current 
definition of recombinant ENA in the NIH Guidelines. Dr. Gottesman then asked 
for a "straw vote" on whether the product of a marker rescue experiment of the 
type diagrammed in the first case is "recombinant ENA." The working group voted 
none in favor, ten opposed, and three abstentions. A straw vote was not taken 
on the second class of experiments as Er. Landy proposed it would be more produc- 
tive to propose changes in the NIH Guidelines to clarify ambiguities, rather 
than taking "straw votes" on interpretation of the current NIH Guidelines. 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 1 1 
[ 75 ] 
