1 
Attachment IJ - ^aqe 2 
No one is an ecologist..." How, then, has the RAC been able to evaluate 
the potential risk to plant and animal health of deliberately releasing gene - 
tically engineered organisms into the environment when it's committee 
has failed to include qualified scientists capable of assessing such risks? 
♦Issue: In order to assess the risk factors involved in experiments de- 
signed to deliberately release genetically engineered organisms into the 
environment, appropriate scientific tests must exist to make the appro- 
priate evaluations. Yet at the dune 22nd Congressional hearing, Karny, 
Sharpies, Alexander, and Clay all testified that such testing procedures 
do not currently exist. Their opinion has been corroborated by the distinguished 
scientists we have secured affidavits from in our court suit. At the Con- 
gressional hearings, Don Clay, Assistant Administrator of the Office of 
Pesticide and Toxic Substances, testified that "there are almost no accepted 
methodologies for evaluating the safety of genetically engineered products. 
We are still several years away from having adequate testing methods and 
risk analysis techniques in any of these areas" This being the case, I would 
like to know how the RAC could have evaluated the risk factors of each 
of the experiments for deliberate release when scientific experts agree 
that the appropriate testing procedures do not yet exist to assess the risk 
factors? 
♦Issue: At today's RAC session, the committee will be going behind 
closed doors to consider granting approval for two more deliberate releases 
of genetically engineered organisms into the environment. This is the first 
time the RAC has gone behind closed doors to evaluate requests for deliber- 
ate release. The RAC contends that this unusual departure is required 
since the requesting parties are private corporations and need to protect 
trade secrets. Of course, no one is challenging the right of these companies 
to protect their work. However, the RAC has decided to keep the entire 
proceedings secret, even denying the public vital information as to the 
risk assessment procedures and tests that were or were not performed. 
The public has a right to be fully informed of such tests and to be provided 
a detailed environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. 
There is no reason why the risk evaluation portion of the proceedings can't 
be debated in full public session. This can be accomplished without in any 
way compromising the rights of the parties involved to protect the secrecy 
of their work. 
I would like to know how the public is going to be fully informed of 
the risk assessment and environmental impact of these two experiments 
when the RAC has decided to discuss and evaluate the proposals behind 
closed doors. 
I am formally requesting that each of the four issues I've raised be 
placed on the agenda for debate and discussion by the RAC. 
[ 213 ] 
