Mr. Rif kin said this then defeated the whole purpose of the 
working group's proposal and for that reason the word 
"connected,” rather than "directed," needed to be used, because 
surely this work was connected and would therefore require NIH 
oversight. Mr. Rif kin said if Mr. Lanman's proposal were to be 
accepted it would show that the NIH and the Federal Government 
were not willing to take responsibility for research it funds and 
that there would be further incidents in the future. 
Dr. Davis said he was surprised by Mr. Lanman's interpretation 
that this would not be a direct provision and agreed with Mr. 
Rifkin that there was a problem. He said, "if there is a general 
agreement that 'direct' would not cover that, [the Wistar 
experiment] then we have not done our job adequately." 
Dr. Cohen said some of the problem is in talking about a 
researcher developing something and someone else using it, and 
this could be resolved by the use of the word "foreseeable," but 
the original researcher might not foresee an eventual use for his 
research. However, in the case of a researcher who develops a 
vaccine, as in the Wistar case, it becomes obvious that a field 
test is a foreseeable consequence of the initial research. 
Dr. McGarrity pointed out that the NIH ruled in that case the 
field test was not a direct extension of the research because no 
field test was mentioned in the original grant application or in 
progress reports. Mr. Lanman said this was part of what was 
considered as well as the fact that the field test was not funded 
by the NIH. 
Mr. Mannix suggested a different approach, to require that 
progress reports include disclosure of any planned testing, 
whether abroad or domestic. 
Dr. Gottesman said her interpretation of Mr. Lanman's response to 
Mr. Rifkin was that if "direct extension" did not cover such an 
experiment, that "sponsored by" might. She said "connected" and 
"foreseeable" would meet with the same problems in terms of who 
is the person who is responsible to foresee a use for research 
materials . 
Mr. Brell asked what problems were seen with using both 
"connected" and "reasonably foreseeable," since these were both 
terms defined by the Council on Environmental Quality. Dr. 
Gottesman reiterated that science is based on all knowledge that 
has come before and therefore it would be hard to convince any 
court that any particular experiment is not "connected" to any 
other research. She said, "the point is that these definitions 
have to be written for scientists as well as lawyers if they are 
going to be of any use to any of us that are doing research." 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 13 
[149] 
