31 
from P3 to lower physical containment at EK1 biological containment with 
the stipulation that the modified organism will not contain overlapping 
fragments which together would encompass the structural gene(s). In 
response to concerns expressed earlier in the meeting. Dr. Gottesman moved 
that physical containment be set at P2, higher than the requested PI 
physical containment level. Dr. Fedoroff seconded the motion. By a vote 
of twenty-one in favor, none opposed, and one abstention, the RAC accepted 
the motion. 
Dr. Gottesman felt a motion concerning items four and five was not required, 
but moved that RAC indicate that itans four and five of Dr. O'Brien's 
April 4, 1984, request do not require RAC action. Dr. Holmes seconded the 
motion. By a vote of twenty-one in favor, none opposed, and one abstention, 
the RAC approved the motion. 
VII. DISCUSSION OF REPORT "THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING" 
AND QUESTIONS POSED BY DR. TALBOT 
Mr. Mitchell said this discussion involved two related issues (tabs 1148, 
1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1159, 1160, 1164, 1167, 1172, 1175): (1) the report 
(called the Gore Report) of the staff of the Subcommittee on Investigations 
and Oversight of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Tech- 
nology; and (2) the questions posed by Dr. Talbot concerning NIH's appropri- 
ate future role [Dr. Talbot's questions were also discussed at the February 6, 
1984, RAC meeting. The discussion appears in the minutes of that meeting as 
item X. Questions Concerning Boundaries for NIH and RAC Oversight . ] 
Mr. Mitchell called on Dr. McGarrity, the Chair of the Working Group on 
Release into the Environment, to begin the discussion. Dr. McGarrity said he 
would begin his report with the evaluation by the Working Group on Release 
into the Environment of the Gore Report and its associated documents. 
Dr. McGarrity said the Working Group on Release into the Environment met on 
April 9, 1984, and considered the Gore Report in detail. He said tab 1151 
is the official response of the working group to the recommendations of 
the Gore Report. 
Dr. McGarrity called the RAC's attention to the preamble of the working 
group response (tab 1151). He said the preamble was based on three 
important points. These are: 
(1) The assumption that RAC at least for the immediate future should 
continue to review and where appropriate recommend approval of 
proposals for release into the environment of genetically engineered 
organisms. 
(2) The recombinant BNA technique is only one of many techniques whose 
products would fall under the general classification of "genetically 
engineered" organisms. The working group, however, restricted its 
discussion to recombinant DNA as defined in the NIH Guidelines. 
[484] 
