5 
support the proposal. A check list of detailed requirements should include, 
but is not limited to...." 
Dr. Gottesman moved that the second sentence and the word "basically" of the 
third sentence be deleted. Dr. Amtzen seconded the motion. Dr. Sharpies 
questioned whether the first sentence of the paragraph was relevant. 
Dr. Gottesman agreed that the first sentence added little to the paragraph, and 
thought it preferrable to modify all of the third paragraph. She suggested 
that language notifying investigators that plant experiments not covered by 
Appendix L would be reviewed by RAC on a case-by-case basis be included in this 
paragraph . 
Dr. Fedoroff suggested the first and second sentence of that paragraph be 
deleted. She thought the third sentence should read: 
"The working group should receive a description of objectives, materials, 
and methods including methodology for monitoring the experiments and 
expected results." 
Dr. Miller said "objectives" should be "stated" vshile materials and methods are 
"described;" he suggested Dr. Fedoroff' s proposed language be amended to include 
this distinction. Dr. Gottesman amended her motion to include these suggested 
modifications. Dr. Fedoroff suggested the fourth sentence of the paragraph be 
modified to explicitly request information on preliminary data and expected 
results. Dr. Scandalios agreed. Dr. Amtzen suggested the following sentence 
be substituted for the fourth sentence: 
"A summary of relevant preliminary results should accompany the results." 
Dr. Gottesman accepted this recommendation. She suggested the second paragraph 
and the subtitle which follows the second paragraph be deleted. That language 
reads: 
"A RAC Working Group has now prepared draft submission guidelines for 
individuals preparing proposals under Appendix L of the Guidelines. 
This proposed guidance is as follows: 
" Items for Consideration to be Included in Proposal Submissions Under 
Appendix L . " 
Dr. Gottesman thought the proposed language should provide a "core" of informa- 
tion; it should thus include information on experiments involving field testing 
of plants not covered under Appendix L. Dr. Sharpies did not think the proposed 
first paragraph of the guidance document should refer to experiments not covered 
by Appendix L as the body of the guidance document does not request information 
necessary for evaluating such experiments. For example, the guidance document 
does not require information on the ecology of wild plants; information of 
this type should be evaluated in reviewing experiments involving plants not 
covered by Appendix L. 
[429] 
