NIH funds were not expended for the field trial in Argentina. 
Dr. Johnson recommended the proposed amendment be rejected. 
Dr. Korwek said he felt two, rather than one, words were the 
subject of debate, namely "project" and "supported;" and the 
Foundation on Economic Trends was attempting to change the 
interpretation of these words within the context of the NIH 
Guidelines with the intent of broadening the meaning of these 
words to preclude any such future tests from lying outside the 
purview of the NIH Guidelines. 
Dr. Korwek said the language of the proposed amendment would 
accomplish what it had set out to do, i.e., put any possible 
aspect of any project receiving any sort of funding from the 
government under the NIH Guidelines; however, he felt the 
analysis use of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
assessment and NEPA applicability could only be ascertained once 
a project had been shown to fall under the NIH Guidelines. 
Further, Dr. Korwek said the proposed language was ambiguous and 
broad and appeared to include things beyond the scope of the NIH 
Guidelines, namely "other products and processes of DNA work." 
He did not know what these were since the NIH Guidelines are 
limited to recombinant DNA work. In summary. Dr. Korwek said he 
felt the language was so broad and ambiguous that it would apply 
to every possible activity; and he felt perhaps this was the goal 
of the amendment. Further, he questioned the extraterritorial 
applicability of the NIH Guidelines. He said, however, that if 
the language were redrafted, he might be willing to support some 
amendment to clarify the applicability of the NIH Guidelines. He 
noted that there had been written comments citing the fact that 
if a reprint was sent to someone and this reprint was used 
somehow in a project, that under the proposed amendment this 
would cause the project to come under the jurisdiction of the NIH 
Guidelines. For these reasons, he said he was opposed to the 
amendment and recommended against its adoption by the RAC. 
Dr. Cohen said he agreed with Drs. Johnson and Korwek. He felt 
the proposed changes were very broad and vague and that such a 
change would make the NIH Guidelines all encompassing. He said 
he understood the Foundation's difficulty with the NIH response 
on the Argentinean experiment; however, he felt that this was a 
problem of interpretation that should be taken up with the NIH 
and did not require a change in the NIH Guidelines. 
Dr. Davis said he agreed with Dr. Johnson. He felt this would 
make the NIH Guidelines too legalistic, therefore, making it too 
difficult for the scientist. He also questioned the 
extraterritorial issue. He cited the case of the Sabin live- 
attenuated polio vaccine which after successful testing in the 
Soviet Union replaced the Salk vaccine as the regular vaccine for 
polio immunization in the U.S. He said that such language, if 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 13 
[49] 
