7 
Dr. Clowes felt the Interagency Task Force suggested by the Gore Report would 
fill a function that RAC already fills. He did not think the proposed task 
force would function better than RAC. Dr. Gottesman said the Working Group on 
Release into the Environment should advise RAC to continue its oversight function. 
Dr. Clowes agreed. He suggested that EPA and USDA might be invited to nominate 
potential RAC members. 
Dr. Miller opposed the creation of another review group co-equivalent to RAC 
and said he could not support the Gore Report suggestion to create an Interagency 
Task Force. He thought the Gore report to be flawed; he pointed to the statement 
in the Gore Report that the report would address "concerns about the potential 
environmental effects of genetically engineered organism created by other tech- 
niques... and other procedures...." He said the report does not define these 
procedures and the definition of genetic engineering offered by the report is 
"fuzzy;" the report and its implications were not well thought out by 
the authors. He said that if FDA were to interpret the Gore Report literally, 
FDA would stop licensing vaccines produced by any technique. FDA has no intention 
of ceasing to license vaccines. 
Dr. Gottesman thought a review ccmmittee should not be "frozen" in its approach 
as was suggested by the Gore Report; RAC is flexible and should continue to 
work flexibly towards determining needs and structures. 
Dr. Sharpies supported the suggestion that RAC should continue its oversight 
function. She suggested however, that the Working Group on Release Into the 
Environment advise RAC that working groups w/ith broader environmental expertise 
should "prereview" proposals involving release into the environment. These 
working groups could evaluate proposals and advise RAC, and RAC would weigh 
these arguments. Dr. Gottesman agreed; she said working group membership can 
be easily modified to meet changing needs and proposals. 
Dr. Pimentel said he was dubious about the quality of an unconstituted, unknown 
review group such as the proposed Interagency Task Force. He felt RAC with 
added environmental expertise is the best review group currently available. 
Dr. Gartland added that RAC has access to and could use an unlimited number 
of ad hex: consultants. 
Dr. Tolin said one advantage of RAC review is that most evaluation is accessible 
to the public; proposals are published for public comment 30 days prior to the 
RAC meeting and for the most part RAC meetings are open to the public. 
Dr. McGarrity said one of RAC's strengths is that RAC's membership could be 
modified to meet changing needs. Dr. Gottesman thought RAC should have varying 
expertise 90 that it might evaluate proposals originating in very different 
areas of the technology. Dr. Miller agreed and said RAC currently intends to 
evaluate such disparate proposals as those involving genetic engineering in 
human subjects and release of modified organisms into the envirorment. He 
thought RAC should have at least one expert in these areas; RAC membership 
should be balanced. Dr. Scandalios warned against overloading RAC with any one 
type of expertise; he felt any expert should be able to marshal the arguments 
necessary to convince the RAC. 
[ 372 ] 
