130 
DR. WRIGHT: With all due respect, Dr. Berg, I think there is a dif- 
ference between publishing the E^_ coli and publishing the results of the 
experiments . 
DR. BERG: They both will be. The material and documentation will be 
published and the organism will be made available to others to verify his 
results. 
DR. WRIGHT: Well, presumably there is a great difference between 
running tests on E_;_ coli and using it in experiments. As I understand 
what you are saying, you are claiming that the Ej;_ coli should be used in 
the experiments as a means of running a check? 
DR. BERG: No. 
DR. CURTISS: I am not sure — I mean, I agree with what you said, Paul. 
I mean, I did not say I have got an EK2 E^_ coli . I think I made that very 
precise. The reason I voted against the Woods Hole guidelines is because 
they did not stipulate that some person other than the person constructing 
it would certify that they felt the data were valid. So these data will be 
submitted, and they will be submitted for publication, and I might say that 
the preliminary results that were obtained some time ago have just come 
out, I guess, in the recent edition of NARSM. There are about 6 pages in 
there. 
DR. BERG: I want to try to identify the procedure. The procedure in 
the guidelines states that the claim of the existence of an EK2 vector has 
to be verfied by independent testing, and a whole series of testing. 
DR. CURTISS: You mean EK3. 
DR. BERG: No, EK2. 
DR. HUTT: That is the point. I would like you to set the page that 
that procedure is laid out. 
DR. BERG: You have to do laboratory tests to certify that that 10~8 
containment is possible and can be done. 
DR. CURTISS: Somebody else has to say that they believe that — 
DR. BERG: The committee. 
DR. CURTISS: The committee, right. 
DR. HUTT: Is that spelled out? 
DR. BERG: Yes. 
[271] 
