10 
a group, a position paper should be prepared for discussion at the September 
19, 1983, RAC meeting. Dr. Nightingale suggested the RAC Working Group on 
Revision of the Guidelines might draft a statement. She said RAC should 
avoid the appearance of being "self-serving;" if RAC makes a recommendation 
it should be phrased so it will not be viewed as a way of creating business 
or perpetuating RAC. Dr. Martin suggested that if RAC were to comment on 
the President's Commission report, that comment should be published in the 
Federal Register for public response. 
Dr. Gottesman moved that RAC as a group submit a comment on the report, 
"Splicing Life." The comment would be developed by a RAC working group and 
presented to the full RAC at the next meeting. In addition, she encouraged 
RAC members to respond as individuals. She said any response should include, 
but not be limited to, the following issues: 
(1) Should there be a second oversight group in addition to RAC, 
or should the job of RAC and an ethical oversight committee 
be combined? Can RAC alone adequately fill these functions? 
(2) What should be the proportion of scientists to nonscientists 
on these bodies? 
(3) How does one define the field to be covered by the groups? 
RAC has a charter; is that charter adequate or inadequate, i.e., 
if RAC were to cover ethical issues, would the charter have to be 
changed? 
(4) To whom would the oversight group(s) report? 
(5) If RAC and an ethical oversight group were combined, 
how would the issue of enforcement or penalties be 
handled? Is there a difference between decisions on 
technical and ethical matters? 
The working group should attempt to compose a position statement for RAC's 
consideration. The working group may develop a consensus; but if it does 
not, it should outline alternatives. 
Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. 
Dr. Nightingale said the working group might discuss the advantages and 
disadvantages of having an array of groups taking care of parts of the 
problem versus one oversight group discussing the entire gamut of issues. 
She suggested that information should be assembled on mechanisms already 
in place to handle parts of the problem. 
Dr. Berns called for a vote on Dr. Gottesman 's motion. By a vote of nine- 
teen in favor, none opposed, and one abstention, Dr. Gottesman's motion to 
form a working group to formulate a response to the President's Commission 
report was approved. 
F95] 
