17 
of the rayoorrhizal fungus Rhizopogon with the roots of its host plant 
(Pinus radiata ) . She said five modified rayoorrhizal strains were produced 
by the induced uptake of whole cells of the bacterium Azotobacter vinelandii 
by sphercplasts of the mycorrh izal fungus Rhizcpogon . The five modified 
strains of Rhizopogon were then inoculated onto the roots of pine seedlings 
( Pinus radiata ) . 
Dr. Fedoroff said the authors of this report were alarmed because one of 
the test groups of pine seedlings died. The authors concluded that they 
hcrf created a new pathogen. Dr. Fedoroff said she would categorize this 
paper as an "observation" rather than an experiment. She said the experi- 
ments were not controlled; the authors do not knew whether they actually 
created a pathogen by their technique, nor do they know whether the result 
is reproducible. 
Dr. Fedoroff said that if this were seriously to be investigated it would 
have to be reproduced, and controlled experiments done to address questions 
such as: is pathogenicity reproducible ; is it a result of putting these 
two organisms together; at what frequency does pathogenicity occur; does 
pathogenicity result from inoculating the roots of pine seedlings with 
rayoorrhizal spherop lasts which had not been put with Azotobacter vinlandii? 
Dr. Fedoroff explained that removal of plant cell walls with subsequent 
regeneration frequently causes mutation. The occurrence of a mutation may 
have affected pathogenicity in the Rhizopogon . She felt that in the absence 
of such information no conclusions can be drawn from the observation. Thus, 
there is no reason to believe the authors created a new pathogen. 
Dr. Scandalios agreed with Dr. Fedoroff as did Dr. Tolin. Dr. Alexander 
said the science in the paper was "other than the best." Dr. Tolin said 
that Dr. Giles had repeated the experiments using a different fungus and 
no pathogenic forms were observed in this case. Dr. Tolin felt the authors 
had behaved responsibly; when they believed they had created a pathogen, 
they autoclaved all materials. Dr. Alexander said he had heard that the 
Ministry of Agriculture in New Zealand had asked the authors to terminate 
the experiments. 
Dr. Saginor agreed with Or. Fedoroff 's comments. He pointed out that 
Drs. Giles and Whitehead had not determined whether the fungus had entered 
the plant cells before or after the death of those cells. 
Dr. Vidaver said she would like to cite for the record two instances in 
which susceptibility to pathogens arose through use of standard breeding 
techniques: the Southern Com Leaf Blight which is a fungal disease of 
com and the Goss Bacterial Wilt and Blight which is a bacterial disease 
of com. 
Mr. Nicholas, the Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Investigations 
and Oversight, said the Giles paper, while not impressive scientifically, 
does raise questions. The request is for RAC to consider these questions. 
[262] 
