was rej ected by a vote of 2 in favor, 11 opposed, and 4 
absten tion s . 
Mr. Mitchell then called for further discussion on Dr. 
Gottesman's original main motion. Mr. Lee Rogers, attorney for 
the Foundation on Economic Trends and Jeremy Rifkin, said the 
status quo was not being maintained. He saw this as allowing a 
change in the NIH Guidelines to go forward anticipating the 
development of satisfactory appendices. In the absence of the 
appendices, the amended language was "not workable because of the 
lack of flesh on the body." 
Dr. McGarrity replied that this was a setting up of a 
superstructure of hew environmental releases would be judged in 
the future. From a practical standpoint it would be better to 
have the superstructure and mechanisms approved now. He noted 
that the revision of Section III-A-2 which had been recommended 
at the September 29, 1986, RAC meeting had still not been finally 
approved by Dr. Wyngaarden. Therefore, if this revision today 
were to be recommended, it would undoubtedly be a matter of 
several months before the NIH Director would act on it, thereby 
allowing time for development of Appendices M, N, and 0. 
Dr. Sharpies asked about the status of the revision recommended 
at the previous RAC meeting. Dr. Talbot stated that NIH staff 
had prepared an environmental assessment (EA) at Dr. Wyngaarden' s 
request. However, the Director was not fully satisfied with that 
EA and had requested that further information be put in the EA. 
The revised EA should be resubmitted to the Director soon. 
Subequent to Dr. Wyngaarden' s approval of the EA, a Federal 
Register notice promulgating the change in the NIH Guidelines 
would be prepared for his review and approval. 
At this point, there being no further discussion on the motion, 
the motion to recommend the NIH Guidelines changes at tab 1286/11 
was put to a vote. The results of the voting were 16 in favor of 
the motion, none opposed, and one abstention. Mr. Mitchell 
thanked Dr. McGarrity and the members of the Working Group on 
Definitions for their fine work on this proposal. 
IV. PROPOSED REVISION OF SECTION I-B OR SECTION III-A-2 OF THE 
NIH GUIDELINES 
Mr. Mitchell called on Dr. McGarrity to explain the proposal (tab 
12 86/III). Dr. McGarrity said the Working Group on Definitions 
considered the term "recombinant DNA. " The working group agreed 
with the concept that certain types of recombinant DNA 
experiments which do not involve the introduction of foreign DNA 
need not be subjected to special regulation as “recombinant DNA." 
The working group was split as to whether it preferred dealing 
with this problem by changing the definition of recombinant DNA 
or by further modifications of other sections of the NIH 
[ 174 ] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 1 1 
