introduction" and,' therefore, is out from under the control of the NIH Guidelines. 
Dr. Rapp argued that just because something occurs in nature does not mean we should introduce it into a population. 
Dr. Cohen said deletions or point mutations in a higher animal might involve different considerations than in a 
microorganism. 
Mr. Mitchell noted that the changes in the NIH Guidelines proposed by the working group had not been published in 
the Federal Register and, therefore, RAC could not take final action at this meeting. However, RAC, if it desired, could 
take a vote on the matter which could then be published for comment and reconsidered at the next meeting, or if desired, 
could recommit the matter back to the working group for further review in light of the discussions which had taken 
place at today's meeting. 
Dr. Neiman stated there were differences between microorganisms which undergo rapid and frequent genetic change, and 
more complex organisms where a simple rearrangement could produce a highly deleterious event Despite being 
sympathetic to efforts to avoid unnecessary over-regulation, he was concerned about non-supervision of certain 
experiments. Dr. Davis agreed. 
Dr. Sharpies then made the following motion: 
"That we refer this matter back to the Working Group on 
Definitions to take account of the discussion that we've 
had here this morning and perhaps make some 
modifications in what the working group presents at the 
next RAC meeting." 
Dr. Talbot asked for clarification as to whether Dr. Sharpies was referring to the definition of "recombinant DNA" or to 
all the recommendations of the working group. 
Dr. Sharpies stated that her motion was meant to refer to all of the recommendations. 
Dr. Korwek seconded the motion, and Mr. Mitchell called for discussion on the motion. 
Dr. Clowes asked if the recommendations that the working group will come up with would have to come back to the 
RAC first for further comment or whether they could be clarified in such a way as to have them placed in the Federal 
Register prior to the next RAC meeting, so that a vote could be taken on them at the next meeting. 
Mr. Mitchell stated he believed it would depend upon how precise the recommendations would be and that it might be 
better to have further discussion by the RAC before publication in the Federal Register . 
Ms. Witherby suggested it would be helpful if the members of RAC could get the new report from the working group 
prior to the next meeting so it could be studied in advance of the meeting. Mr. Mitchell replied that this would have 
been the case this time except that the meeting was held on September 5th and that there hadn’t been enough time 
between then and today to accomplish this. 
Dr. Gottesman stated she felt that in order for the motion to be really productive it would be useful if the working 
group recommendations were published in the Federal Register and comments from the public sought prior to the next 
meeting so that a vote could be taken at that time. She added that some of the recommendations of the working group 
were not as controversial as the definition changes. She offered to amend Dr. Sharpies’ motion to include a request that 
the working group proposals be published in the Federal Register prior to the next RAC meeting. 
Mr. Mitchell suggested that rather than making that part of the motion, that it could be a matter the working group 
could determine itself once they met and determined what progress they had made. 
Dr. McGarrity agreed with Dr. Gottesman's suggestion of Federal Register publication before the RAC meeting as it 
would not only give RAC members more time to look over the new recommendations, but it would be put before a 
broader audience. Dr. Johnson agreed. 
[90] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 11 
