38 
Dr. Fedoroff asked if RAC’s response to the Gore Report would be transmitted 
to the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Dr. Talbot 
said RAC could ask NIH to transmit the report. He pointed out, however, 
that RAC minutes are available to the public and authors of the Gore Report 
are present at this meeting and have heard the discussion. 
Dr. Fedoroff felt seme public comments reflect an enormous ignorance of RAC 
procedures. She suggested RAC be more aggressive in disseminating informa- 
tion about how RAC functions. 
Dr. Fedoroff moved that a subgroup of the Working Group on Release into the 
Environment be appointed to formulate a response to the Gore Report. The 
draft response would be sent to the full RAC for review. Dr. McGarrity 
seconded Dr. Fedoroff 's motion. Dr. Harvin suggested the draft response 
be discussed at the next RAC meeting. 
Mr. Mitchell said the Chair understands Er. Fedoroff 's motion to encompass 
endorsement of the response of the Working Group on Release into the Environ- 
ment to the recommendations of the Gore Report. The motion also endorses 
the views of the working group on the question of RAC's future role. 
Dr. Clowes asked if there was any purpose to lumping together the working 
group responses to the Gore Report with the working group responses to 
Dr. Talbot's questions. He thought it reasonable to vote on each issue 
separately. Dr. McGarrity felt the responses to Dr. Talbot's questions 
bear on the response to the Gore Report. He felt these responses would 
help convey the sense of the working group regarding the current functions 
and duties of the RAC. 
Dr. Carl Mazza of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said a letter 
frcm the EPA Administrator, Mr. Ruckelshaus (Attachment IV), which was 
being circulated among the assembly, contains Mr. Ruckelshaus' reply to 
the reccmnendations of the Gore Report. 
Dr. Mazza said he saw three levels of issues in the Gore Report. The first 
are the scientific questions raised by the Gore Report. There is a great 
deal of debate about the relevance or accuracy of some of the scientific 
conclusions; thus, individuals who examine the Gore Report frcm this 
perspective view the report negatively. 
Dr. Mazza said the second level issues are the specific recarmendations of 
the Gore Report. The Gore Report calls for the formation of an interagency 
task force and for experimentation in this area to await the formation of 
the task force. As no task force exists, a person viewing the Gore Report 
frcm this perspective would have problems with the report. 
Dr. Mazza said the third level issues deal with a series of concerns about 
coordination between the various Federal agencies, communication between 
the Federal agencies and the need to gather expertise government-wide. 
These concerns are: Are current regulatory authorities adequate? Is there 
adequate coordination among the agencies? Are other mechanisms such as an 
[491] 
