February 23, 1962

Dear Mr. Snriver--
some notes on the Columbia-Presbyterian proposal.

1. First principles: this is, of course, a highly reputed outfit, esrecially
well-known for its clinical strength in neurology, especially epilensy. On this
basis alone, there is no doubt that they would be entirely worthy of help. However,
my own capacity for more detaile! comment is limited by two factors: (a) I don't
havethe general picture of the Foundationg's resources, and the other claims on
it to make a useful judgment of priority, and (B) the chief strength of this
group is in its clinical orientation, and thus outside my snecial competence.

2. For a more detailed evaluation, I would have to raise the following questions.
Who is actually vehind the croposal, and would ‘urnish the leadership for its
implenentation. It is signed by Mesritt as Vice-President: is he actually involved
any longer in research affairs?

vy

3+ To my own mind (and this is a highly personal outlook), Columbiats real =
strength has been its neurobiocherists, peovle like Kabat, Nachmansohn and Jaelsc:.
They are not even gentioned here. —

4, Perhaps because the proposal was intended to be addressed to an administrative
more than scientific respondent, it Joes not give a clear victure of what new x

activities would be furthered by the grant. But possibly, the existing vrogra:s
are seriously nindared to the point where relieving them would justify the expen-
diture. Would it serve to attract the enthusiasm for research in mental .retar lation
of any peoole not alkeady fully committed to it?

These are not criticisms so mich as questions founded in my own remoteness fro
the setup, ani they certainly should not be taken as the only way to look at what
might be a very powerful activity in its own lights.

Sincerely,
Ny j

} j

ffi.
Hosea Lederberg
if

ff
fe
ue