"In the context of these Guidelines recombinant DNA 
molecules are defined as either (1) recombinant molecules 
which are constructed outside living cells..." 
He believed only new combinations from different organisms should be covered and not deletions, single base changes, 
rearrangements, et cetera. He also stated that "deliberate release" had a perjorative connnotation of something dangerous, 
and that he preferred deleting this phrase wherever it appeared in the NIH Guidelines and substituting the phrase "planned 
introduction" which he said means the same thing. 
Dr. McGarrity reiterated that many substitute phrases were discussed in the working group, and that there was no phrase 
which was acceptable to everyone around the table. Dr. Gottesman stated that it was not clear that "planned 
introduction" meant the same to everyone as "deliberate release," and that since "deliberate release" had been the term 
previously used, there was virtue in leaving this term in place, despite the negative connotation. Dr. Gottesman also 
felt that Dr. Clowes' proposal to insert the word "recombinant" in Section I-B involved a similar problem. 
Dr. Rapp stated many people in the field regarded "recombinant DNA" as referring to any case in which recombinant 
DNA technology was used including deletions, rearrangements, et cetera within an organism or between organisms. He 
also stated that a change in definition to eliminate such from coverage is a big step and not a trivial point. 
Dr. Davis said RACs purpose is to protect from harm. Activities which go on in nature such as gene deletions and 
rearrangements cannot be controlled by RAC. Similarly, he stated that he felt the problem in defining "deliberate 
release" is seeking a scientific solution for a non-scicntific problem. He noted that the ability of an organism to become 
established in the environment depends entirely on the properties of the organism in competition with everything else 
in the environment and not on numbers of organisms released, and that if an organism is not competitive, despite local, 
transient effects, no widespread, global effects are to be anticipated from such releases. He cited the example of the 
ice-minus organism previously reviewed by RAC, and said that removing a gene from an organism producing a 
phenotype that already exists in nature is not dangerous. 
Dr. Korwek said he was concerned that RACs attempts at redefining these terms could have impact outside the NIH in 
that the Office of Science and Technology Policy is working on a regulatory scheme for biotechnology, and that 
redefinition by NIH could have a "ripple effect" on the regulatory agencies leading to profound regulatory implications. 
Dr. Talbot replied that the RACs charge is to recommend to the NIH Director changes in the NTH Guidelines for 
Recombinant DNA Research . The NIH Director is a member of the Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee 
(BSCQ where he can coordinate NIH policies with the policies of the regulatory agencies. 
Dr. Gottesman noted the RAC deals only with recombinant DNA. while EPA deals with broader aspects of 
biotechnology. RAC should deal with its charge without worrying about implications vis-a-vis the concerns of the 
regulatory agencies. 
Dr. Korwek then questioned Dr. McGarrity as to the working group proposed definition of "recombinant DNA." He 
was bothered by the phrase in the working group minutes that, "It was the sense of the working group that this is not 
intended to cover movement of plasmid or virus DNA to a chromosome...." He stated that a definition should stand 
alone without interpretive statements. A definition that is not self-sufficient to state clearly what is meant is not a 
good definition. He also said he did not understand the proposal to add the sentence concerning planned introduction to 
the "deliberate release" definition. If a release is not planned, how can it be controlled under the NIH Guidelines? 
Dr. Gottesman explained that the working group had been trying to come up with a term to replace "deliberate release" 
because of its negative connotations of just releasing something into the environment and not caring about what 
becomes of it and not controlling it, whereas "planned introduction" seemed to suggest more positive feelings in that it 
seemed to connote a purposeful introduction and more control afterwards. However, she said that she personally saw 
almost as much problem with the phrase "planned introduction" as with the phrase "deliberate release" in terms of what 
people mean by the term. If researchers proposed to do a field test in which they planned an introduction, then it clearly 
would be covered by the new definition. However, if they simply decided to dump material into the environment 
without caring what happens to it, it might be claimed that it does not fall under the definition of "planned 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 1 1 
[ 89 ] 
