39 
interagency review group necessary? Dr. Mazza said the EPA shares these 
third level concerns; the concern of the Federal government is reflected in 
the creation and mandate of the Cabinet Council Working Group on Biotechnol- 
ogy. Dr. Mazza felt many of these third level concerns are shared by many 
people in the asserrbly and should not be disregarded. 
Mr. Mitchell said RAC has considerable experience in the recombinant ENA 
area and seme RAC members are frustrated to learn that seme RAC actions 
have been misunderstood or misconstrued. Mr. Mitchell said no other group 
of comparable composition or history has existed in the field and RAC's 
views and opinions should carry a certain weight. Mr. Mitchell said there 
was a feeling RAC should more forcefully express its views and opinions and 
get all the facts on the table. 
Dr. McKinney said he may have misunderstood, but he thought Dr. Mazza was 
suggesting RAC not respond to the Gore Report because RAC ran the risk of 
muddying the waters. Dr. McKinney thought RAC has an obligation to respond 
as it has expertise, sound information, and experience to contribute. He 
recalled that in the early history of the recombinant ENA issue a great 
interest in passing legislation existed in Congress but later gradually dis- 
appeared. Now, RAC is going through another cycle because new events have 
caused people to reexamine hew RAC has managed this technology. He felt 
the valued experience of RAC must be brought to bear on this subject. RAC 
is and will continue to be an integral part of this debate and must maintain 
communication and provide input. RAC cannot sirtply wait to see what happens. 
Mr. Nicholas, the Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight, said he perceived a defensiveness among RAC members about RAC's 
role; he did not think the Gore Report was critical of RAC's role. He 
thought there was a general consensus, in Congress as well as elsevhere, 
that RAC has done an excellent job. Mr. Nicholas said the question is 
"where do we go from here." 
Mr. Nicholas said the Gore Report was an attempt to create a process to 
resolve difficult issues. It was widely circulated for ccnment, and a good 
scientific discussion by RAC of the issues would be totally appropriate. 
If the Gore Report may be legitimately criticized for certain statements, 
the staff of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight deserves the 
criticism. Mr. Nicholas advised strongly, however, against RAC endorsing 
the letter from Dr. Brill as: (1) the letter has not been subjected to a 
critical review, and (2) endorsing the letter imparts an inappropriate 
tone to the debate. Mr. Nicholas said perspectives such as RAC's should 
be lent constructively to the process of helping the Federal Government 
deal with this difficult issue. Mr. Nicholas referred to the motion made 
earlier in the meeting to append to the minutes of the February 6, 1984, 
RAC meeting, the A£M reply to Representative Gore concerning the Giles and 
Whitehead publication. Mr. Nicholas suggested that to establish a viable 
equal dialogue. Representative Gore's response to the A£M letter should 
also be made part of the record. 
[492] 
