Y The \:
5] Rockefeller % THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
a University (= 1230 YORK AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10021
> Ke May 9, 1986
CT Sy5r O

JOSHUA LEDERBERG

PRESIDENT cet (+)

Dr. Frank Fenner

The John Curtin School of Medical Research
The Australian National University

G.P.O. Box 334

Canberra, A.C.T. 2601

Dear Frank: |
ce

Thank you for writing me about your memoir on Mac Burnet.

Yes,indeed I had read Burnet's papers when I was quite
young. I did not then nor ever later regard them as out of
date! I am sure that I read his 1934 review on bacteriophage
in Biological Reviews somewhere around 1941-42. His book
"Virus as Organism" 1945, loomed only behind Rene Dubos' "The
Bacterial Cell", in helping me frame a comprehensive biologi-
cal perspective on viruses and on bacteria. His work on lyso-
genicity prepared me to accept the authenticity of that phe-
nomenon at a time when Delbruck was quite hostile to it. I
think we took that up in publication #32 and as well as in
#26B. There in fact there was an anticipation of lysogenic
conversion which I sessed upon with great fascination.

My trip to Melbourne in 1957 was predicated on the hope
of learning about influenza genetics from Mac. As you know
when I got there he was just turning his full attention to
antibody formation -- a subject on which I had also read his
writings. I think that the result of that encounter is well
encapsulated in my paper in Science 129:1649-53, 1959. Gus
Nossal can certainly fill you in further about that.

In 1955 I had walked right up to the elective theory of
antibody formation (having reached that conclusion with re-
spect to induced enzyme formation) but then walked right away
from it under the impression that there was an infinity of
antibody species, which therefore could not be genetically
predetermined. It was my meeting with Burnet in 1957 that
reopened my eyes on that question.

Dr. Frank Fenner
May 9, 1986

-2-

On the other hand I found Burnet remarkably uninformed
with respect to modern views of the mechanisms of protein
synthesis, DNA coding etc. and that theoretical article in
Science was an effort to bridge the gap between Burnet's
marvelous biological intuition and a more modern molecular
perspective. This was a zone in which we could never really
quite come to closure; but it did not in any way diminish
my profound admiration for his sense of an organism.

His biological perspectives were then very important to
me not only in thinking about viruses, but in thinking about
populations of microorganisms and their evolution and in
turn the genetic foundations of their behavior.

Do get Gus to fill in on all of that background, as I
am sure you are doing.

I have had a fair bit of experience lately in drafting
and reviewing biographical material. If it would suit you
I would be more than pleased to review a draft of your manu~
script for either of two possibly useful functions for yous:
1) a general critical perspective about scientific biography,
and 2) what I can then fill in by way of data from my own
personal experience and recollection, as well perhaps as
from what I can dig out of my correspondence files.

In any. case you have an estimable task: Ecce homo!
And my best wishes to you for that and for all else.

Yours_sincerely,

 
  

Joshu Lederberg

P.S. I have mentioned your project t enneth
Schaffner who has written perceptively
on the history of modern immunology. I
hope he will send you some material.

Encl.