26 
agency position on NIH's proper future role, and steps to be taken 
before prcmul gating any changes from the current role. 
M l. Should the NIH Guidelines be limited strictly to work done in the 
laboratory? In this case, 'release to the envirorment' including 
field tests would fall outside the jurisdiction of the Guidelines. 
"2. Should NIH accept for review only individual proposals funded by 
NIH or only proposals funded by the Federal government? In this 
case, review of individual proposals from industry would fall outside 
the Guidelines. 
"3. Should all portions of all RAC meetings be open to the public? In 
this case, NIH could cease to accept any proprietary data for review, 
and such would fall outside the boundaries of the Guidelines. 
"4. Should the NIH Guidelines be limited strictly to biomedical research? 
In this case, agricultural and other studies would fall outside 
the jurisdiction of the Guidelines. 
"Each of these proposals would create a new 'boundary' for the NIH Guide- 
lines. It should be noted that an unusual 'boundary' already exists, 
since two pieces of ENA spliced together outside living cells constitute 
'reccnibinant DNA' and fall under the Guidelines, but if the same two 
pieces of ENA were spliced together within a living cell they would 
not be considered ' recombinant DNA' and therefore would not currently 
fall under the Guidelines." 
Dr. Friedman said Dr. Talbot's four questions could be reduced to two 
questions: (1) vhat are the extended responsibilities of the RAC; is RAC 
the appropriate body to deliberate on uses of recombinant ENA technologies 
that do not directly pertain to health matters, and (2) is it appropriate 
to close portions of RAC meetings to the public? Dr. Friedman said the 
first question is not a new issue but rather has been part of RAC's history. 
Participants at the Asilcmar conference, for example, were concerned with 
questions such as the ecological consequences of release of altered organisms 
to the envirorment. 
Dr. Friedman offered one argument in favor of RAC continuing to review all 
activities involving recombinant DNA technology; the situation is simpler 
vhen one review camdttee is responsible for overseeing all work. If a 
lumber of ccrmittees evaluate specific portions of the activities, seme types 
of work might "fell between the cracks" and not be reviewed. Morever, 
reccnbinant DNA technology is based on molecular biology regardless of 
vh ether the particular application is agricultural , ecological , or medical . 
Thus, a carmittee with expertise in molecular biology is a desirable review 
mechanism. Dr. Friedman suggested that RAC do the initial review but 
might direct the proposals for further review to other appropriate agencies 
or ccirmittees. 
[271] 
