8 
"We recognize that the issues which will be dealt with by RAC 
represent only some of the social and ethical issues associated 
with the applications of genetic and biomedical technologies. 
In addition, we believe that the general oversight function needed 
for these broader issues is not easily combined with the RAC's 
role in setting Guidelines and reviewing specific experiments. 
The expertise and experience of the RAC will be available to 
bodies which may exercise oversight of the broader issues. We 
expect continuing national discussion to lend new insight in 
dealing with the specific cases to be considered by RAC." 
Dr. Walters asked how RAC's scope of oversight should be defined. Is the 
current scope adequate? Dr. Martin felt those therapies which use recombinant 
DMA molecules should be within RAC's purview. He and Dr. Gottesman agreed 
that RAC should discuss the logic of evaluating all human engineering proposals 
using recombinant DNA technology: i.e., the guidelines probably should regard 
CNA molecules which have been treated with restriction nucleases to separate 
the gene from the vector as recombinant DNA molecules. Et. Walters said his 
personal preference would be that RAC review all proposals in which recombinant 
DNA technology has been used at seme point, including the situation where 
molecules introduced into a patient have been treated with nucleases. 
Dr. Martin asked if RAC should review use in humans of proteins produced by 
recombinant CNA technology. Dr. Walters felt only the cases involving gene 
insertion should be considered. Dr. Gottesman agreed; the self-perpetuating 
nature of the gene distinguishs it from protein. Dr. Martin asked if somatic 
therapy will be distinguished frem germ line therapy. He argued that somatic 
gene therapy will be self limiting, while germ line therapy will not be. For 
the patient, somatic therapy appears to be equivalent to germ line therapy in 
the benefit to be gained. Germ line therapy may provide no advantage and may 
involve unsolvable ethical questions. Dr. Saginor felt RAC will have to 
evaluate both somatic and germ line therapy. 
Dr. Walters asked if embryo modification would be covered under RAC's mandate. 
Dr. Martin said it would be if recombinant CNA were used. He argued, however, 
that somatic therapy would be preferable. He felt somatic gene therapy does 
not present ethical questions different from those associated with bone marrow 
transplants. Qa the other hand, in germ cell therapy, who decides which 
characteristics will be changed? How does one distinguish between disease and 
eugenics? 
Dr. Nightingale said she would like to call for a straw vote to determine 
whether the working group supports the concept of an oversight body to deal with 
applications of new genetic and biomedical technology. Dr. Martin seconded 
the motion. 
Dr. Harvin said he could not support the motion. He said the motion does not 
specify the oversight purview of the new body; he feared such a committee 
would control too many groups (including RAC). Dr. Walters said he saw no need 
[169] 
