C.B. van Niel
P.O. Box 1833
Carmel, California 93021  . 22 Nov., 1976

Dear Joshua,

I have no recollection of having been involved in any
way in Ed Tatum's coming to Stanford as George Beadle's
research associate. Shortly after the spring quarter in
1935 I began my first sabbatical leave of absence, from
which I didn’t return till November, 1936. I attended the
Cold Spring Harbor symposium on photobiology, spent a day
at Harvard, but didn't meet Beadle (don't even know whether
he was there at the time), and sailed for Europe where I
participated in the program of the Internat. Botan. Con-
gress in Amsterdam. I had intended to work in Otto Warburg's
institute for the first 6 months, but changed my plans be-
cause earlier in 1935 Gaffron in Berlin and Roelofsen in
Delft had published some conflicting papers on purple bac-
teria metabolism (I'd received the latest one during
the CSH symposium), and I found it necessary to try and
resolve the conflicting claims before going to Warburg. The
Delft lab was equipped with all I needed; Roelofsen's cul-
tures were still flourishing; so I stayed there for the
next 6 months, working uninterruptedly about 15 hours every
Single day. When at the end the muddle had been cleared up,
I went to Berlin to do a few critical experiments with
Gaffron, then on to Basel to acquire some familiarity with
chlorophyll chemistry in Stoll's institute where I spent
the remainder of my sabbatical leave. There had not been
time to visit other places in Holland, and I didn't meet
K§gl, Haagen-Smit or Tatum that year.

The return voyage to California, on a Swedish.freighter
through the Panama Canal, provided the opportunity to write
a paper I'd promised to do for the Bull. Assoc. Dipl. Microb.
A rather hard task because there were no dictionaries on
board, and the paper was to be in French. Back home, I im-
mediately had to concentrate on the Ann. Rev. Biochem. ar-
ticle, and it was only after that was finished that I first
met Ed Tatum who had come to visit us. We had never cor-

' responded, and I knew of his work on Propionibacterium nu-
trition only from his publication. I expect that George
Beadle will know who and what caused him to get Ed appointed
by Stanford.

In the late '30s Ed taught a course at Hopkins Marine
Station on the use of microorganisms for vitamin determin-
ations. It may have been that same summer that Bill Arnold,
then my Research Associate, gave a course on biophysics.

C. V. Taylor attended and greatly admired it, saying that

in his opinion every biology student ought to be exposed

to this approach. Perhaps that was why he proposed to
President Wilbur that the vacancy due to Prof. Burlingame's
retirement be filled by the appointment of two new Assistant
professors: Ed Tatum and Bill Arnold. Wilbur agreed, and
they were added to the faculty in 1941. Already in November
of that year Bill was recruited to join a team of scientists
studying problems connected with various aspects of bal-
listics, on an indefinite leave of absence from Stanford.
~2u

-‘When the war was over he was not reappointed to his former
position, a shocking development to me, who did not know
that Ed Tatum's fate was to be quite similar. Ed stayed at
Stanford during the war years, and he and I jointly gave

a general microbiology course on the campus in 1942 or 43;
Gus Doermann and Dave Regnery were among the students.

In 1944 I was invited to spend a few weeks at Yale Univ.
to consult with the faculty on the establishment of a full-
fledged microbiology department there. My report to Pres.
Seymour contained recommendations for the appointment of a
number of outstanding specialists in various branches, along
with their names and accomplishments. As a result Ed was
offered a position as Associate professor, at a salary of
$3,500. He came to see me one evening, and we talked about
his prospects at Stanford where he much preferred to stay.
But he could hardly afford to do so at his then salary of
$2,500, and told me that he would gladly decline the Yale
offer if Stanford would raise his pay to $3,000. When I
said this would be readily acceded to (of course!), Ed felt
greatly encouraged, almost jubilant; all seemed to be going
well.

Alas, my hopes and expectations were totally shattered
at the faculty meeting Taylor had called to consider the
situation. To my utter surprise and disgust, a large majority
voted against any kind of advancement for Ed, arguing that
this was a fine opportunity to compell him to leave, and
then he could be replaced by someone who "could teach biology
which was so badly needed!" Crestfallen, I immediately of-
fered to resign myself--it was not accepted--and after the
meeting I went to see Ed, expressing my apologies for hav-
ing raised false hopes. And so, Ed went to New Haven.

During the following years I've often pondered the ques-
tion what had caused the opposition of the faculty. The ans-
wer probably is that C. V.'s ascendency to departmental
chairman had generated deep resentment, finally breaking out
in open revolt. From the beginning Taylor had emphasized the
importance of experimental approaches and particularly the
use of physical and chemical methods which many of the fac~
ulty were not equipped to do, and probably even failed to
understand. Thus they banded together and for a while could
defeat Taylor's aims.

Tf hope this information, incomplete as it is, may be of
some help in preparing the biographical memoir. Sorry there
are gaps but, as I may have mentioned to you on an earlier
occasion, I gave my scientific library, notes and papers in-
cluded, to the microbiology department at the Univ. of Gro-
ningen (Holland) three years ago, so that they are no longer
accessible to me here.

Fond personal regards and wishes,

Kees