18 September 1979
Dear Francis,
Thanks for your letter of 5th September.  A few days earlier I received a letter from Charlotte Friend enclosing her letter to The Sciences, and your article.  A copy of my reply is enclosed.
However, now that you have raised the matter, I have read your article more carefully, and I do think there is one place where you are not quite fair to her.  You say she was "too determined to be scientifically sound" and I think this will sound rather damning to most readers who will take the term literally.  I would think by your criterion, large numbers of our colleagues could be equally found wanting.  Perhaps you could change it in the book to be published.  The fact is that in Paris she was quite ready to accept advice (from people like Mering, not only Luzzati), whereas the reaction she might have had to you yourself would, I imagine, have been coloured by her contacts with Jim.
I would suggest a phrase which suggested a lack of flexibility, because there was no doubt about the soundness of her work in the ordinary sense.  An afterthought:  I now see there is a second way in which your phrase could be read, namely she was determined to follow a conservative, X-ray analytical course and not allow other considerations to enter.  Presumably this is what you intended, but even so, it could easily be misunderstood.
Yours ever,
A. Klug
(dictated by Dr. Klug and signed in his absence)