6 
were cases where individuals may be at greater risk. He felt the language 
provided necessary guidelines and that it would be an error to delete this 
language. Mr. Mitchell said that if the CDC/NIOSH report is to be published, 
it should be published as written; should RAC amend it, the document would no 
longer be the CDC/NIOSH working group report. He argued that the report shows 
how little is known in this area and in this way contributes information. 
Dr. Miller of the Food and Drug Administration (FCA) said he had strong 
reservations about RAC discussing the CDC/NICSH report; he said in the 
past RAC has repudiated responsibility for the physical aspects of large- 
scale uses of recombinant DNA technology. Dr. Nightingale said the RAC 
had requested a report, and in response the CDC/NIOSH working group had 
compiled the document. She thought it appropriate for the RAC to have 
requested this information; she asked that this sentiment be recorded 
in the minutes. 
Dr. Friedman said he felt it is important to look at the question of 
medical surveillance, but he did not think the CDC/NIOSH report provides 
useful insights. 
Dr. King Holmes asked if RAC ever determined what was to be published in 
the Recombinant DNA Technical Bulletin . Dr. Talbot replied that the editor. 
Dr. Milewski, would consider RAC's recommendation. Dr. Nightingale said 
she did not know the editorial policy of the Bulletin and, thus, could 
not make a recommendation on whether the CDC/NICSH report should be published 
in the Recombinant DNA Technical Bulletin . Dr. Landy suggested that the 
RAC simply give the CDC/NIOSH report to the editor of the Recombinant ENA 
Technical Bulletin to consider whether or not to publish it. He said he 
personally found the document interesting, particularly the last paragraph 
describing the limitations of medical surveillance. He felt that statement 
should be published. He suggested a friendly amendment to Dr. McKinney's 
motion; he would amend the motion to suggest the Recombinant DNA Technical 
Bulletin consider publishing the report. Dr. McKinney agreed . Dr. Martin 
then withdrew his amendment to delete the language describing medical 
conditions which might place biotechnology workers at greater risk. 
Dr. McKinney then withdrew his motion to publish the CDC/NIOSH report in 
the Recombinant DNA Technical Bulletin . As no other motion was offered, 
the discussion ended. 
IV. REQUEST TO FIELD TEST TRANSFORMED TOMATO AND TOBACCO PLANTS 
Dr. Scandalios introduced the request (tab 1080) from Dr. John Sanford of 
Cornell University to field-test tomato and tobacco plants transformed with 
bacterial and yeast DNA. Fbllen would be used to mediate transformation 
of the plants with plasmid vectors. Large numbers of plants would be 
screened in the field to detect transformation events. Dr. Scandalios 
said the recombinant plasmids to be used will carry kanamycin resistance 
genes. He said Dr. Sanford argued that field testing should be permitted 
as: (1) tomato and tobacco are self-pollinating, non self-propagating 
species which cannot survive without man's help; (2) field testing of 
f 12 1 
