145 
DR. TOOZE: Yes. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: The revised Guidelines proposed by the NIH Committee 
indicate that for well-characterized genes from prokaryote sources we would 
use P1+EK2. May I ask what classification you use in Europe to define path- 
ogenic? Are you bound by the CDC Class 1, Class 2, and so forth? 
DR. TOOZE: I don't think that — EMBO is an organization of scientists 
It really isn't a national committee. I believe it is true to say that the 
French National Committee on Tuesday of this week took the criteria I just 
read out to you as their basic ground criteria from which you can elaborate 
special cases where you believe you have a special risk. But those were the 
basic ground cases. 
If you say what is a pathogen and what isn't a pathogen, I think clear- 
ly there are some well-defined and well-known pathogens. They are listed 
by yourselves and by other organizations. And then there are organisms less 
well characterized which may be pathogenic or may not. I think we would con 
cede, if you want to use the words "well characterized" for nonpathogenic 
versus pathogenic. I think those are points one can elaborate. I would 
take those to be exceptions rather than the rule. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: I mention that specifically for the record, because 
there recurs throughout the commentary here questions about the CDC classi- 
fication with reference to Class 2, where it is felt very strongly, and has 
been through correspondence for a year, that certain organisms are there 
which are clearly, in the minds of many people, not shown to be pathogenic, 
and that there will be some necessity of raising the question about doing 
something about the CDC classification in two different ways. One is to 
look toward a revision of it, and that is in progress, a cooperative endeav- 
or between CDC and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 
Another is that the Recombinant Advisory Committee dealing with these Guide- 
lines will have to have some discretion to consider certain of those orga- 
nisms that may be proposed in the interim. 
Now, Mr. Hutt — 
MR. HUTT: I have two related questions. The first, we start with the 
premise that anything that requires either EK3 or P4 in this country at this 
time in effect is banned, because we have neither. Now, is there a signifi- 
cant amount of experimentation that is so characterized under our Guidelines 
— not just the current ones, but the proposed new ones — that requires less 
stringent EK or P containment abroad, and therefore that can be done abroad 
at this time, that can't be done here? That is a very general question 
that may require only a general answer. But I think it would be useful if 
we could understand what is permitted abroad in a sense that is prohibited 
in this country today. 
The second is a related question. You said that you must take one 
virus at a time, in effect, and look at it. Is EMBO the organization that 
[349] 
