275 
meaning to many microbiologists, and I don't believe it is appropriate to use 
that word in recombinant DNA, and I would support the definition that Maxine 
Singer used yesteday in reference to Paul Berg's letter — I believe in the 
second Orange Book. 
In general I think plant people, whether or not they are pathologists, 
physiologists, or otherwise, would support the revision of the Guidelines 
and continue to support the inclusion of people who deal with plants, whether 
or not it is pathological situations or healthy ones. In this regard I would 
endorse Beaty's recommendation specifically of altering the recommendation for 
crown gall — that that be changed to P2+EK2 from its current classification. 
We were also given a letter yesterday based on the classification of 
hazard that Kado and others from the University of California suggested be 
used for dealing with phy topathogenic bacteria, and I would not want the 
Committee to believe that that should be anything more, in my opinion, than 
a point of departure. There are points of contention there. Also, the 
letter does omit plant viruses and fungi and also transcripts of viroids. 
Mr. Hutt has already dealt with the question of industry in a much 
more formidable way than I could; but I think the academic world must recog- 
nize that industry does have a voice in these Guidelines, which I think we 
will all have to live with one way or another, and that proprietary rights 
must be dealt with. After all, if we are going to be talking about benefits, 
it is industry, ultimately, that is likely to provide us with many of these, 
and there must be a way for them to see a potential profit in monetary terms, 
besides human terms. 
I would also like to endorse the possibility of having alternate 
host-vector systems be encouraged, because in plant work it is doubtful that 
E. col i is going to be the most readily usable organism for us, although we 
cannot specifically foresee this. 
Many people have already dealt with the question of risk assessment, 
and again, I would endorse the concept that we must deal with this also. In 
the plant world, there are other considerations than in the animal world, and 
I believe in considering experiments that would be dealt with in this area 
that interaction be conducted with representatives, perhaps from the USDA. 
Again, these types of experiments might come under the exemption clause; but 
if we are ever going to get to the point where essentially the Guidelines 
continue, hopefully, to be downgraded, we are going to have to assess these 
risks . 
Something, finally, that has been mentioned before, I believe, primarily 
in written correspondence, is that if we are going to consider benefits we 
must also consider an ultimate mechanism for release of anything that is 
beneficial; and the question would be, Is it premature to consider how this 
might be handled? I think that with the advances that we have made in the 
last couple of years, this is perhaps not so far-fetched, and it is time, 
perhaps, to at least consider this possibility. Thank you. 
[ 479 ] 
