adoption of the superseded wording for Appendix K-l as presented 
by Dr. Gottesman and the motion was duly seconded. 
There being no further discussion on the motion. Dr. McGarrity 
put the motion to a vote and the motion passed by a vote of 15 in 
favor, none opposed, and Dr. Johnson abstained from voting. 
VI. PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE PSEUDOMONAS MENDOCINA IN SUBLIST A, 
APPENDIX A, (tabs 1310/V, 1323). 
Dr. Roberts said the proposal was a simple case of including an 
organism in sublist A of Appendix A. He said it merited little 
discussion, was well documented and clear. Dr. Erickson said he 
was of the same view. 
Dr. Gottesman said organisms on the list are supposed to exchange 
information between each other and therefore have already seen 
each other's genetic complement. Therefore, if it is made by 
recombinant DNA, it is not novel. Plasmid mobilization of 
chromosomal DNA has been taken as evidence for chromosomal gene 
exchange. A separate issue is does this exchange take place in 
both directions. 
Dr. Roberts moved that the proposal from Dr. Burt Ensley of AMGen 
(tab 1323) be approved. Mr. Brewer seconded the motion. There 
being no further discussion, Dr. McGarrity put the motion to a 
vote. The motion passed by a vote of 14 in favor, none opposed, 
and no abstentions. 
VII. LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION INVOLVING CEPHALOSPORIUM ACREMONIUM 
STRAIN LU-79-6 (tab 1310/11, 1311, 1313, 1324, 1329). 
Dr. McKinney said he was in agreement with the proposal by Eli 
Lilly to approve this at less than BL1-LS containment, but he had 
some concerns from the documentation which he felt should be 
brought to the committee's attention. 
He said there seemed to be some disagreement between the request, 
the heading of the letter, and the closing paragraph of the 
letter from Eli Lilly in how they intended to handle the 
committee's decision. In the request they had asked that the RAC 
approve conditions for experiments and products involving 
Cephalosporium acremonium . However, the closing of the letter 
said that the Lilly IBC would determine what conditions would be 
used depending on the outcome of the experiments. He asked for 
clarification of what role the Lilly IBC was going to have and 
whether RAC was being asked to approve production methodology 
beyond the experimental stage. 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 13 
[159] 
