14 
federal agencies nor industrial concerns. He feared proposals funded by such 
entities would not be reviewed if RAC restricted review to NIH grantees' proposals . 
Dr. Miller pointed out that NIH is new granting funds to for-profit institutions. 
This process blurs the distinction between "industrial" and "university" proposals. 
Dr. Miller thought the most important argument in favor of NIH continuing to review 
all proposals is that NIH and RAC perform a useful, valuable function in overseeing 
reccrrbinant DNA technology and should continue to do so. 
Dr. McGarrity asked the working group whether all portions of RAC meetings should 
be open to the public. Dr. Clowes felt meetings should be as open to the public 
as possible. He supported the concept that companies should minimize the amount 
of proprietary material submitted for review. He felt RAC should, however, hold 
closed sessions as necessary. Dr. Gartland said NIH would have to respect a 
company's request for confidentiality if the company says public knowledge of 
what they are doing would be prejudicial to them. He pointed out that NIH can 
only protect proprietary information under a broad general statute; it has no 
special statutes to protect proprietary information such as those assigned to 
EPA under TSCA. 
Dr. Miller arpued that public divulgence of information would have serious 
repercussions on patent issues for the research company. He said the government 
has many precedents for maintaining the confidentiality of preprietary information. 
He pointed out that FDA reviews are not open to the public, and EPA will protect 
all proprietary information except for cleansed data. RAC, thus, would simply 
be following accepted procedures. - 
Dr. Gottesman said the procedures and thought processes employed by RAC in 
developing procedures to evaluate proprietary proposals would be public knowledge, 
and the scientific arguments will be the same in public and in private sessions. 
Thus, specific proprietary proposals might be reviewed confidentially as RAC 
has lay members to represent public interests, publicly-known criteria, and 
procedures for evaluating proposals. Dr. Gottesman felt it was reasonable, 
nonetheless, to urge companies to minimize the amount of information they wish 
treated confidentially. 
Dr. Arntzen agreed with Dr. Gottesman that procedures and guidelines by vhich 
proposals are evaluated should be public kncwledge but proprietary proposals 
can be reviewed in private. 
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS UNDER APPENDIX L 
Dr. Gottesman said the Plant Working Group was attempting to develep guidelines 
(Attachment II) for evaluating proposals under Appendix L, Release into the 
Environment of Certain Plants , of the Guidelines. The list developed by the 
Plant Working Group had been discussed by RAC at its February 6, 1984, meeting. 
At that meeting, comments and suggestions (Attachment III) had been made concerning 
the contents of the list. Dr. Anne Vidaver of the University of Nebraska, a member 
of the Plant Working Group, has since addressed these comments and suggestions 
(Attachment IV). Dr. Gottesman said that as the list was a working document 
which would continue to evolve these materials had been forwarded to the Working 
Group on Release Into the Environment for comment. 
[379] 
