outside the test facility or whose natural mode of transmission 
requires injury of the target organism in some other way, may 
allow an investigator to reassure an IBC that inadvertent release 
is unlikely to initiate and propagate infection of organisms 
outside the experimental facility. 
For macroorganisms, either non-motile or sterile strains could be 
used or the experiment could be conducted in the winter. In the 
case of nematodes, water collection could be used. Screens or 
cages could also be employed. 
Dr. Fedoroff said that at this point she would like to open up 
the topic for discussion and asked for comments. 
Dr. Korwek asked what exactly was a "noxious weed," because he 
believed there was to be a reference included for such termin- 
ology. Dr. Fedoroff said that it was cited in the original 
document, but perhaps this reference may have been omitted. She 
said she would ensure that it be included in the final proposal. 
Dr. Walters said that tab 1290, paragraph 70, showed only 
Biosafety Levels 1 through 3 and questioned whether there should 
be a fourth. Dr. Tolin agreed. Dr. Fedoroff noted that this was 
a typo and needed to be changed to reflect Biosafety Levels 1 
through 4 . 
Dr. Fedoroff noted that one of the major comments is that it 
would be unnecessary to put up biohazard signs when all the 
evidence was that these experiments were perfectly safe. She 
said in the original document the suggestion had been to only put 
up biohazard signs if certified pathogens were involved in the 
experiments. This has even been questioned in the public 
responses to the Federal Register notice. Dr. Fedoroff said that 
traditionally any experiment involving recombinant DNA had a 
requirement for the biohazard sign to be in place. Also, the 
subgroup had felt there was no need for a requirement for non- 
exotic pathogens and for any experiment done in an open box. 
Dr. Richardson said the biosafety guidelines were written 
specifically for host-specific animal pathogens and zoonotic 
agents. The biohazard warning sign was to serve as an alert as 
far as human risk. Therefore, there is no requirement for a 
warning sign at Biosafety Level 1. At Biosafety Level 2, the 
biohazard warning sign indicates special conditions for entry 
into the laboratory. If those were not applicable in the case of 
either Appendix Q or Appendix P, there would be no reason to 
require a biohazard sign. However, at Biosafety Levels 3 and 4 
the sign would become universal at all points of entry. 
Dr. Fedoroff asked Dr. Gartland for guidance as to how this could 
be handled and whether it was necessary to incorporate such 
statements as part of a motion when a motion is made to either 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 13 
[71] 
