37 
"No deliberate release should be permitted by EPA, NIH, US DA or any 
other federal agency until the potential environmental effects of the 
particular release have been considered by the interagency review 
panel . . . . " 
The report defines genetically engineered organisms very broadly to include 
not only organisms modified by recombinant DNA techniques, but also organisms 
modified by techniques such as protoplast fusion, chemical mutation, etc. 
If FDA were bo take the third recommendation of the Gore Report at face 
value, no FDA approvals would be given for the "release" of live attenuated 
virus vaccines until reviewed by the new interagency review panel. Many 
of these vaccines, including live attenuated polio virus vaccine, have been 
around for a very long time and are produced by conventional, nonreccmb inant 
ENA, genetic engineering techniques. 
Dr. Fedoroff said RAC should construct an independent response to the Gore 
Report. Ibis response should include criticisms of the report such as those 
noted by Dr. Miller. She did not think the committee should reply to the 
Gore Report simply by endorsing Dr. Brill's letter, although she thought 
the letter was excellent. 
Dr. Sharpies said it would be inappropriate to send to Representative Gore 
the Brill letter as part of RAC’s response bo the Gore Report. She pointed 
out that Dr. Brill is affiliated with industry and not a RAC member. She 
said she personally disagreed with several of Dr. Brill's ccrrments. For 
example, she disagreed with Dr. Brill's statement that there are no signifi- 
cant differences between recombinant organisms and nonengineer ed organisms; 
she said that some recombinant organisms may possess characteristics such as 
the ability to transfer gene sequences which nonengineer ed organisms do 
not possess. Furthermore, Dr. Sharpies felt there was a fundamental incon- 
sistency in RAC endorsing a letter vhich states "there are no problems" with 
the fact that RAC exists to evaluate whether there are problems. Dr. Pimentel 
supported Dr. Sharpies position; he suggested that RAC should act in a scien- 
tifically sound manner. 
Dr. Fedoroff said she did not wish to imply that RAC endorse Dr. Brill's 
letter in RAC's official response to the Gore Report. She thought RAC 
should formulate an independent response based on valid criticisms of the 
Gore Report. 
Mr. Mitchell said RAC could proceed in several ways: (1) return the matter 
to the working group; (2) the Chair could appoint a working group of two or 
three people to draft a response; or (3) no specific action would be taken 
other than accepting the response of the Working Group on Release into the 
Environment . 
Dr. McKinney felt any response to the Gore Report should be circulated to 
all RAC members for carvment before finalization as there may be minority 
opinions. 
[490] 
