32 
recanrended approved, of the revised proposed by a vote of nineteen in favor, 
none opposed, and no abstentions. The USDA Recombinant DtA Caxmittee then 
reviewed the proposal and recommended it be approved . Following the 
recommendations of the RAC and the US DA Recombinant DWV Committee the NIH 
granted permission to proceed with this field test by a notice in the 
Federal Register on June 1, 1983 (48 FR 24549). 
Mr. Mitchell said he had had an opportunity to read the affidavits in the 
lawsuit brought by the Foundation on Economic Trends. He said that as an 
attorney he is accustomed to seeing affidavits of facts,* in his opinion, 
the affidavits supplied by the Foundation on Economics Trends are affi- 
davits of opinion. 
Mr. Mitchell said that in his opinion the June 22, 1983, testimony before 
the House Subcommittees are also statements of opinion. He said there was 
no testimony before the House Subcommittees nor are there any affidavits 
on file in the lawsuit stating that RAC had been in error in recarmending 
approval of the field testing of the Ice nucleation minus bacteria. 
Mr. Rifkin said the affidavits expressed concern about RAC's lack of 
appropriate environmental expertise not about the danger of the proposed 
experiment. He said experts from the fields of entomology, population 
genetics, ecology, and plant pathology have submitted affidavits stating 
specific problems with RAC's review procedures and lack of expertise. He 
noted that on Jhne 22, 1983, before the House Subcommittee on Science, 
Research, and Technology and the House Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight, several witnesses testified that appropriate procedures and 
protocols for adequately assessing risk in this area have not been developed. 
He questioned how RAC could proceed when it lacks expertise and doesn't 
have appropriate testing procedures and protocols. Mr. Rifkin said his 
responsibility as a member of the public is not to speculate as to whether 
a particular experiment is good or bad but to ask whether the review proce- 
dures are adequate. 
Dr. Harvin said it's very easy to raise objections, complications, and 
be a prophet of doom. However, someone has to accept responsibility for 
reviewing these issues, and the question before the RAC is who is going to 
review the issues and protect the public. 
Dr . Marsh of Eli Lilly and Company said RAC has worked . Industry 
generally is conservative and appreciates entities that work. If there 
had been regulations rather than the flexibility of evolving Guidelines, 
technological progress would not have been as great as it has been. The 
Guidelines have worked for science and for humanity because they have been 
flexible. 
Dr. Harvin moved that the discussion be accepted as information and entered 
into the record as such. Dr. Fedoroff seconded the motion. By a unanimous 
voice vote, the motion was carried. 
[277] 
