footnote was ambiguous and should be replaced by the word 
"genome. “ 
Dr. Cohen said that the prime concern had always been whether you 
had the potential to create something unique. One method is to 
create unique things by mixing genomes, but another is to 
accelerate the rate of evolution many thousand-fold. 
Dr. Clowes said he would rather leave the definition vague and 
then exempt certain classes rather than trying to build 
everything into the definition. 
Dr. Johnson said he had somewhat the same problems with the 
Option 1 footnote as Dr. Davis in the use of the words "organism" 
and "strain"; he said it was unclear whether “organism" and 
"strain" refers to organisms at the genus or species level. 
There being no further discussion on the motion to reject Option 
1, Mr. Mitchell called for a vote. The motion carried by a vote 
of 11 in favor, 6 opposed, and no abstentions. 
After a brief summary of the specific changes in language 
encompassed in Option 2, Dr. Walters moved that Option 2 be 
adopted. Dr. Neiman seconded the motion. 
Mr. Mitchell asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Rogers 
referred to comments by the Ecological Society of America which 
had concern that intergeneric manipulations could pose serious 
ecological threats. He asked for further discussion on this 
issue. 
Dr. Gottesman said this had been discussed at the previous 
meeting and was so noted in the minutes. No one had said that 
all deletions and rearrangements were innocuous. She saw the 
RAC's mandate as concentrating on unique recombinant DNA 
constructs. It is not clear that deletions, rearrangements, 
amplifications, and single base changes should fall under this 
man da te. 
Dr. Epstein asked whether these now to be excluded releases would 
be reviewed by any agency other than NIH. Mr. Rogers said that 
was also his concern, i.e., that intergeneric transfers would not 
be re/iewed by anyone and further that the NIH had the most 
experience in this type of review. 
Dr. Sharpies explained to Mr. Rogers that intergeneric transfer 
was not the issue in this proposal, but rather that self -cloning 
mechanisms, such as deletions and rearranganents within the same 
organism, were the basic issue. Further, Dr. Sharpies said that 
she believed Dr. Gotteanan's view of the RAC's mandate was 
incorrect; RAC has a duty to make certain that experimental 
research using recombinant DNA technology is carried out in such 
[176] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 1 1 
