release of microorganisms containing deletions and 
rearrangements . 
Dr. Gottesman summarized the major changes in tab 1286/III/Option 
2, as compared to what had pre/iously been recommended by RAC as: 
extension to include "single base changes" in part b; and 
extension to include chromosomal as well as extr achr omos anal 
rearrangements in part c. 
Dr. Johnson said he was still concerned with the use of the word 
“organism" as to whether it referred to genus or species. He 
proposed an amendment to the wording of Section III-A-2-c, to 
substitute the word "species" for “strains." 
Mr. Mitchell asked for a second on the motion. There being no 
second for the motion the motion died. 
Dr. Davis said he had obj ection to the word "organism" in the 
same section, and he would move to have it replaced with the word 
"species." Dr. Gottesman seconded the motion. 
Dr. Grief er from the Department of Commerce said that in his 
opinion changing the language at this point would be denying 
public canment on it. Dr. Talbot said that in the past the NIH 
Director had accepted changes suggested at RAC meetings, 
sometimes based on public comment, but that major broadening at 
this stage would not be acceptable without a new opportunity for 
public canment. He said that the change being contemplated, 
namely substituting the word "species" for "organism,", was in his 
view a minor clarification and should not have to be resubmitted 
for public comment. 
Mr. Mitchell then called for a vote on amending the language in 
Section III-A-2-c to read: 
"Rearrangements and amplifications within a 
single genome. Rearrangements involving the 
introduction of DNA from different strains of 
the same species would not be covered by this 
exemption. " 
The motion to amend passed by a vote of 16 in favor, none 
opposed, and 1 abstention. 
Mr. Mitchell asked for further discussion on the motion as 
amended. Dr. Neiman requested amplification on Dr. Gottesman' s 
point as to whether if an experiment could be performed utilizing 
standard genetic techniques, this should be viewed differently 
when performed utilizing recombinant DNA technology. 
A lengthy discussion took place during which it was argued that 
there was no difference. Depending on the possible hazard to the 
[ 178 ] 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 1 1 
