27 
Dr. Landy concurred with Dr. Friedman. He said that the purpose of RAC 
from the beginning was to evaluate whether some recombinant ENA experiments 
might have an impact on the environment. He stated that RAC in addition 
to making scientific assessments based on available data has became a focus 
for the expression of public concern. Dr. Landy thought one reason the 
technology has advanced is that the public has viewed RAC as a forum, a place 
to express concern, to be heard, and to have a dialogue with scientists. 
Removing issues from the RAC forum will not increase public access but 
will most probably limit public access as most regulatory agencies function 
most of the time behind closed doors. 
Dr. McGarrity listed three controversies which had arisen in the past few 
years: (1) large-scale applications and voluntary compliance; (2) deliberate 
release of recombinant DNA containing organisms into the environment; and 
(3) application of genetic engineering to humans. Dr. McGarrity said that 
along with the science these issues involve a number of legal, ethical, and 
moral implications; and one might ask if NIH is the agency to handle these 
questions, particularly as NIH is not a regulatory agency. Dr. McGarrity 
suggested other agencies may be more intimately involved with particular 
controversial areas. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) may have jurisdiction over deliberate releases under the Ibxic Sub- 
stances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Dr. McGarrity hoped, however, that NIH and RAC 
would keep their expertise and review mechanisms in place and not create 
a vacuum by premature withdrawal before the regulatory agencies put 
adequate alternative review mechanisms in place. 
Dr. Alexander said that in his view NIH should not be the lead agency in 
regulating problems of agriculture or environmental issues as NIH does not 
have statutory authority in areas other than public health and does not 
display a professional interest in questions basic to the environmental 
release issue. NIH is not funding research in agricultural or environ- 
mental questions and RAC's composition reflects the NIH 's primary concern 
with public health. He said recombinant ENA advisory groups in agriculture 
or the environment should be associated with agencies having the competence 
and regulatory authority to deal with specific agricultural and environ- 
mental issues . 
Dr. Clcwes said historically RAC has not restricted its scope to public 
health issues; indeed, discussions at the Asilomar conference were not 
restricted to health issues. Dr. Clowes said the NIH has funded a great 
deal of the basic science research resulting in the recombinant DNA tech- 
nique; thus, it was and is appropriate that the NIH oversee recombinant 
DNA experiments. He said that much of the early research on Agrobacterium 
now so important to plant bioengineering was funded by the NiH. Dr. Clowes 
felt NIH has access to a larger group of experts in this area than other 
agencies. Dr. Fedoroff added that NIH funds research on plants. 
Dr. Alexander said he did not question NIH motives, rather he questioned 
the competence of the review groups constituted by the NIH to review 
[ 272 ] 
