Berg, Baltimore * Brenner and Rob1 in.

April 17, 1975

Singer

Cments on latest draft of Asilomar Reports,

1.

In the introductory "Report" which written by Berg, the following comments.

Page 2, line 5 from bottom:

Should include the notion that those attending the conference were in
fact told that there would be no distribution or copying of the tapes.
Otherwise it seems to be left to the discretion of the Academy to act
on our reconmendation when in fact, we really have to insist on the
restriction.

Page 4:  In order accurately to reflect the procedure on Thursday morning,
I believe the tlReport" should state clearly that a vote by hands was taken
on each section of the Provisional Report, with one exception, and
further that the votes were all overwhelming in the sense that there were
no votes in which more than 10 percent (or whatever) of those voting voted
in the negative.  This should be qualified to indicate that in some
instances, the wote was taken with the clear understanding that the
section would be revised in accordance with specific recommendations for
changes.

Page 5:
Bayev's remarks and his indication of support and cooperation.

I believe it would be useful to include a brief report of

2. SUEMRY STATEMENT (APPENDIX I)

Section 1.

Page 1, second paragraph, first sentence.

In reference to "should end: and, if so, whether there are ways,...
etc."  I don't like the rewrding of this.  The meaning is quite
different from the sentence in the Provisional Report. The original
is more accurate in that it reflects the fact that essentially everyone
came to Asilolnar assuming that we would indeed be in a different
posftion than that defined in the Berg letter by the end of Asilomar.
Further, the wording says that the decision to end the pause might
have been made separately from the minimization of risks while in fact
these two notions were very much interwoven.  In case I haven't made
thfs clear, note that the way it is currently written suggests that
the pause might have ended without ways to minimize the risks.

Section 11.

Page 3.  The word "similarly", (line 8 from bottom) is gratuitous, since
the point being made is not similar in principle, or logic to the previous
sentence. Strike the word.

Page 4,  At end of ltne 8, insert "l)", to go with "2)'' two lines down.
On line 3 from bottom, word should be substantial and not
substantiated, or documented rather than substantiated (or both) o
Thus: "--and substantial and documented"

Section 111.

See comments on copies of pages C, 8, 9, and 10 where not specifically
indicated its OK with me.

In general I found it odd to realize that as it is now constructed, there
are no experiments in category 4 (High Rlsk) containment except for a
poorly defined group under prokaryotes,  We should realize that essentially
we are saying that experiments classified as High Risk are not to be done.
It's fine, but I wanted to point this out.  For myself, I think I might
put experiments with total primate DNA and prokaryote vectors into such
a class.

3. APPENDIX J

Why have you substituted the idea of a safety "officer" or "office" for
the original notion of a cmittee?  I wouldn't object to including both
ideas, i.e., saying either a committee or a safety office or officer.
I don't think we should have only the officer.  It can more readily be
viewed as "police" as opposed to a peer group and might, therefore, be
less acceptable to many,

4.  Alexander Goldfarb has received a visa to migrate, according to
  FIY TSmes.

5, Implementation (Section IV, Brenner). See conments on copies of

Pages 11, 12, 13.