116 
MR. HUTT: Page 3 of theirs and page 11 of yours. 
DR. SINGER: Okay. If I could spend a few minutes looking at this, 
I would be glad to respond to your question. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Now, theirs refers to a statement from the Boston 
DNA Recombinant Group? 
Dr. HUTT: Yes. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Which document we offered earlier here for 
distribution. 
Why don't we give Dr. Singer the coffee break? 
(Laughter. ) 
We will promptly reconvene at 3:45. 
(Brief recess.) 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Dr. Allan Silverstone of MIT had prepared in his 
remarks a partial analysis, at least, of the differences between the La 
Jolla guidelines, that is, the last version, and the statement from the 
Boston Area Recombinant DNA Group. The question which actually 
was asked at the time we adjourned. So we are granting him a portion of 
his time to give his perception of the differences between the committee's 
guidelines and this submission from the Boston Group, and then we will re- 
turn to Dr. Singer's analysis of what differences remain. 
Dr. Silverstone? Would you go to the podium, please? 
DR. SILVERSTONE: I have more extensive remarks on other matters, but 
I thought maybe since part of my remarks included comments on the dif- 
ferences in containment, I might make them, and then Dr. Singer could re- 
ply and elaborate. 
The major difference between the Boston Area Recombinant DNA guide- 
lines and those proposed in La Jolla is that we propose the banning at 
this time of additional experiments, shotgun experiments, in mammals and 
avian species. We also propose much higher levels of P4 containment for 
shotgunning of the other organisms down to prokaryotes. 
We similarly propose that physically purified, 99 percent purified 
DNA from mammals and avian species also be banned. 
Our reasoning is that we believe the original idea of banning some of 
these experiments was that there might be DNAs that could cause cancer in 
[257] 
