personally did not think this wording does much to improve or 
clarify concepts. She said there were two conceptual points with 
regard to deliberate release that needed to be spelled out: (1) 
that deliberate release is of concern if other organisms will be 
exposed to the organism being released and that this exposure 
might be harmful; and, (2) that deliberate release is of concern 
if the organism that is being released will have the opportunity 
to exchange genetic information with other organisms that are in 
the environment. She said that adding the words about "planned 
introduction" did nothing to clarify these concepts. This 
wording "is not a definition? it is just a description." 
Dr. Sharpies said that with Appendices M, N, and 0 not yet being 
in existence the referencing of such appendices in the NIH 
Guidelines was unacceptable. She had no objection to an effort 
being made to create these appendices and felt their construction 
would represent real progress in the area. However, she felt it 
would take some time to accomplish this. In regard to Dr. 
McGarrity's statement that a multidisciplinary effort would be 
needed to complete these appendices. Dr. Sharpies agreed and said 
she hoped all relevant scientific disciplines would be 
represented in the working groups convened to work on the 
appendices. Further, as a member of the Public Affairs Canmittee 
of the Ecological Society of America, she said she was certain 
the society would be willing to assist NIH and the RAC working 
groups by providing expertise available from within its 
membership. 
Dr. Sharpies then called attention to the existing Appendix L 
which states that: 
“Appendix L specifies conditions under which certain 
plants, as specified below, may be approved for release 
into the environment. Experiments in this category 
cannot be initiated without submission of relevant 
information on the proposed experiment to NIH, review 
by the Plant Working Group and specific approval by 
NIH. " 
Dr. Sharpies said that for experiments meeting the Appendix L 
criteria, it is not that these experiments will not be reviewed, 
but that the Plant Working Group instead of the full RAC would 
re/iew them. For Appendices M, N, and 0, she urged use of the 
same concept of working group approval in lieu of full RAC 
appr oval . 
Dr. Vidaver indicated she supported the working group's proposal, 
and that many of Dr. Sharpies' concerns could be covered in the 
appendices. She said Appendix L was already in place, and the 
USDA is considering Appendices M and N. 
Dr. Clowes said he fully supported the working group's proposal. 
[172] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 1 1 
