33 
This was a massive document. It had three columns. The first column 
was the entire text of the Hogness draft. The second column was devoted to 
the Woods Hole draft, and the third column was devoted to the Cutter draft, 
which showed every single variant reading. This included spellings, punc- 
tuation points, underlinings, bibliographic citations, everything. It also 
included in some instances fairly massive deletions, fairly massive inser- 
tions, and some fairly extensive textual revisions. There were, in all, as 
one looked through the document, about 250 points of variation. Many of 
these were trivial; I was happy when the committee agreed to pass to me the 
responsibility of deciding whether it should be a semicolon or a colon. 
On the other hand, many of them were quite substantive in nature. 
These were discussed at La Jolla in great detail. 
On each issue a vote was taken, and the vote of the majority was 
accepted. On some issues none of the three variants appeared to be accept- 
able to the committee, and new drafting was done. The committee labored 
far into the night on two successive days, and the guidelines which are 
before you represent the result of this effort. By the time the meetings 
were over, the committee was truly functioning as one might wish a committee 
to function, with a commonality of purpose and with recognition that there 
was a serious job to be done and, I think, some satisfaction that perhaps 
they had approximately done it. 
It is my belief, and I think that of the majority of the committee — 
and Dr. Berg, I think, would agree — that there is no final guideline. Even 
in these guidelines we have detected certain inconsistencies which will have 
to be eliminated. When this is done, new experimental data will continue to 
come in which will cause us, from time to time, to modify our estimate of 
hazard and the constraints imposed. Therefore this is a standing committee. 
Its next meeting is scheduled for April 1st and 2nd. I would imagine it 
would meet three or four times every year for the next several years to 
review what it has written and what needs to be changed. 
Thank you very much. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you. Dr. Stetten. 
No amount of genetic research will ever, I suppose, eliminate the next 
phase of the agenda. But before you go, I would like to remind you of two 
things. One is that I have reminded you earlier of the materials already 
sent to the committee. There are copies of some, particularly some recent 
submissions from the Boston Area Recombinant DNA Group and the Genetics and 
Society Policy Group, which are reproduced on the table behind you for those 
who wish them. 
[174] 
