15 
have emitted information that is considered minimum and essential for 
their approval, and if that's the case I'm wondering if there's been 
any discussion as to whether this should proceed by a vote and by the 
Director okaying it before proposals caning up to the RAC are being 
considered?" 
Dr. Gottesman replied that Mr. Rifkin was misconstruing the statement about 
emitted information. What this statement referred to is that the earliest 
submissions did not contain as much data as the Plant Working Group would 
like. It asked for more data; it got the data. It considered those pro- 
posals only after the data were supplied and that continues to happen in 
the review process. The guidance document for future submissions should 
in no way inhibit the review of individual proposals already submitted. 
Dr. Gottesman moved that RAC accept the guidance document as a working docu- 
ment for investigators preparing submissions under Appendix L. Dr. Fedoroff 
seconded the motion. 
Dr. McKinney asked why the phrase "if feasible" was included in the language 
of item C— 1 • He suggested the words "as appropriate" be substituted for "if 
feasible." Dr. McGarrity replied that this language was included because if 
an investigator were studying plants having a long generation cycle such as 
pine trees and had to follow the requirenent for collecting data for two 
generations, the investigator would start the experiment as a graduate 
student and complete it well beyond Social Security age. The phrase "if 
feasible" was incorporated to provide flexibility in this respect. 
Dr. McKinney replied that the words "as appropriate" met these concerns 
more appropriately than the words "if feasible." In his interpretation, 
"if feasible" suggests that if an institution does not have the in-house 
capability to generate the requisite information they can forget about it. 
He suggested the motion be amended to substitute the words "as appropriate" 
for the words "if feasible." Dr. Gottesman accepted Dr. McKinney's sugges- 
tion to amend the language as did the seconder of the motion, Dr. Fedoroff. 
Dr. Walters suggested the language of the guidance document be published 
as information in the Federal Register . 
Dr. Pimentel suggested the language of items C-2-d be amended to mention 
monitoring of animals and to read as follows: 
"d. specify plant monitoring procedures: frequency; types of data to 
be obtained, including leaf, seed, fruit, or root characteristics; 
disease, insect and other animal population monitoring;" 
Drs. Gottesman and Fedoroff said they would accept Dr. Pimentel's sugges- 
tion as they saw this document as a working guidance document for submitters 
under Appendix L. If animal population monitoring is appropriate for a 
particular experiment the investigator should submit plans for such 
monitoring. If on the other hand it is irrelevant, the investigator need 
not develop such plans. 
[468] 
