10 
vacrue regarding time frames. Dr. Arntzen feared RAC might be deluged with 
requests if no time frame is established. Dr. Gottesman pointed to RAC's 
experience in the biomedical area. She said early in RAC's history all proposals 
involving recombinant ENA in certain areas came to the NIH for review and 
approval. In time, however, RAC developed principles and procedures; responsi- 
bility for overseeing many types of procedures was then delegated to the Insti- 
tutional Biosafety Canmittees. As more experience accumulated, responsibility 
was subsequently delegated to the Principal Investigator. Dr. Arntzen wondered 
whether the working group should mention this experience in its report to RAC. 
Dr. Miller thought a preamble ought to recognize the limitation imposed by over- 
seeing only reccmbinant DNA technology. He suggested the following language be 
incorporated into a preamble: 
"In many instances, jurisdiction only over recombinant ENA technology 
represents an unnatural division of responsibility." 
Dr. Md^arrity said such language implies that RAC is requesting broader respon- 
sibility. He felt such a request would be inappropriate. 
Dr. Mazza suggested the working group add as a footnote to the preamble a state- 
ment to the effect that "RAC has not discussed whether these other technologies 
warrant similar review." 
The workina group then discussed the definition of genetic engineering as it 
would apply to Dr. Gottesman' s motion. Dr. Sharpies felt the working group is 
cognizant of the definition of biotechnology used in the Gore Report, and this 
would be implied or stated in the preamble to Dr. Gottesman' s motion. Dr. Miller 
said the Gore Report is internally inconsistent in its use of the definition 
of oenetic engineering; he thought the working group motion should not refer 
to the definition used in the report. Dr. Pimentel thought the preamble should 
refer to the Gore Report but not use the report's definition of biotechnology. 
Dr. Pirone agreed. Dr. Lacy suggested that including the Gore Report definition 
of biotechnology in the motion might inadvertently support that definition. He 
did not feel the motion should support this definition. 
Dr. Pimentel suggested a footnote defining reccmbinant DNA be added to the 
preamble of the motion. Dr. Gottesman said the definition implied in her motion 
is the definition of reccmbinant DNA stated in the NIH Guidelines; she would 
state this definition in the preamble. 
Dr. Pimentel said the working group motion should question whether TSCA is 
the appropriate statute to regulate deliberate releases of organisms contain- 
ing reccmbinant DNA molecules. He noted that TSCA does not cover research 
releases, and this failure to oversee research releases was a great concern 
to him. 
Dr. Pimentel thought EPA should have responsibility for overseeing research 
activities involvinq deliberate release of living organisms as well as commercial 
releases. Dr. Tolin pointed out that research involving some of these organisms 
[375] 
