11 
mioht be covered by US1A regulatory authority and not by EPA authority. 
Dr. Arntzen suggested scientists might have to have a lawyer to deal with EPA 
should EPA regulate research releases. Fie expressed the opinion that the NIH 
ard USDA should be responsible for oversight and evaluation of research protocols 
as these institutions have greater expertise in research; EPA should have 
oversight responsibilities for canmercial production and applications. 
Dr. Clowes said the motion might express Dr. Pimentel's concern, however, he 
thought the working group cculd not offer a legal position. Dr. Pimentel said 
he would accept a preamble indicating that seme government agency should oversee 
research activities. Dr. Gottesman agreed to add language to the preamble 
expressina this concern. 
Dr. Cl ewes then turned the discussion to consideration of that portion of the 
second recommendation of the Gore Report which suggests that ini form guidelines 
be developed. He thought review would best be served by a case-by-case approach. 
He thought the applications of the technology would be too varied to permit a 
standard aeneralized set of guidelines to be constructed. Dr. Miller agreed. 
Dr. Lacy suagested that a broad set of flexible principles might be developed. 
Dr. Sharpies suggested these flexible principles might be called "principles 
of approach." Dr. Pimentel thought there could be no rigid guidelines; review 
must evaluate each organism and how the organism is to be used. Dr. Pirone 
supported the concept of a flexible review process. 
Dr. Mazza asked if Dr. Gottesman would add language to the preamble concerning 
the use of working groups to prereview proposals. Dr. Pirone agreed with 
Dr. Mazza' s suggestion. Dr. McGarrity supported this suggestion as working 
groups can be more flexible in their composition. He asked if representatives 
from interested fed er ail agencies would be invited to participate and to vote 
in working qroups. Dr. Gottesman agreed to add such language. 
Dr. Miller questioned whether the motion might list procedures such as breeding 
race horses or developing roses vhich would not be considered "other procedures" 
as defined in the Gore Report. Dr. Sharpies felt such a listing would confuse 
the situation. 
Several other points of language in the motion were also discussed. Dr. Gottesman* s 
final motion read as follows: 
"Introduction 
I move that we recommend to RAC the following responses to the seven 
recommendations of the Gore Report: 
"The responses are based on the assumption that at least for the immediate 
future, RAC should continue to review and, if appropriate, approve proposals 
for release to the envirorment of genetically engineered organisms. That 
review would include consideration of the specific proposal by a working 
group of the FRAG with appropriate expertise. 
[376] 
