THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY

pro bono humanis generis
1230 YORK AVENUE - NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021-6399

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
December 28, 1987
Dear Dr. Chandrasekhar:

I am writing to you nmainly to express my appreciation for my enjoyment of "Truth and
Beauty". I have seen some of these essays before, but am glad to have them conveniently
collected.

In many respects, there are differences between biology and physics: rarely do we have
similar opportunities for blinding beauty in our findings -- it is still fun to figure out how the
Watchmaker put together our biological machines, however much more idiosyncratic and
arbitrary in detail they are compared to the foundations of physics. I take the liberty of
sending you a brief memoir that may give some hint of how our motivational orientations
may still overlap.

My particular comment to you is about age and productivity, about which you made
several comments. For my own part, I am more like the physicists: my most important work
was certainly what I did as a 21-year old. I have all kinds of reflections why the particular
opportunity for intellectual contribution changed after a decadal spurt: above all I had opened
up a new field; its texture was very different thereafter. And no one has accused me of
abandoning science (except perhaps 9 years ago when I assumed my present post -- and that
would be a most superficial assessment.) I was very much tempted to join you at the Fermi
Institute when Szilard generated an offer in 1949; and I have often pondered whether I missed
a unique intellectual stimulus by deciding to stay at Madison. My interest in cosmology goes
deeper than my competence! Howbeit, I read with some resonant lament what you quoted of
Yukawa, closing his autobiography in 1934.

I do know a number of biologists who did their best work just before retirement (O.T.
Avery; William Trager), or continued a lifetime of productivity rather like Rayleigh: Arthur
Kornberg.

But I have a particular question to ask of you, namely about the membership of the NAS.
At present, the youngest electee is Freedman (at age ~ 37). .
The youngest current members of the NAS
name , date of birth

CECH THOMAS R_ 12/08/1947

TARJAN ROBERT ENDRE 04/30/1948
FEFFERMAN CHARLES L_ 04/18/1949
HOOFT GERARDUS ’T 12/ /1950

RUBIN GERALD M. 03/31/1950

FREEDMAN MICHAEL HARTLEY 04/21/1951

Historically, a number have been elected much younger:

youngest electees from historical records (among currently active)

(grouped by age at election)

name year Section
elected

30

Fefferman CL 1979 11

31
Schwinger J 1949 13
Gell-Mann M 1960 13

32
J. Lederberg 1957 26
Milnor JW 1963 11

Pauling L 1933 14
33

Anderson CD 1938 13
Cohen PJ 1967 11

Freedman MH 1984 11
Goldreich PM 1972 16
MacDonald G 1962 16
Thorne KS 1973 12

34
Hooft G ’T 1984 13
Press F 1958 16

Watson JD 1962 26
Wood WB iii 1972 26
I would like to start a drive in the NAS to be sure we are not overlooking young genius. Can
you think of some youngsters (<= 35, let’s say) in the fields you know best? Or is there a sea
change in contemporary science?

It would be a great treat to meet you someday, at last. Have you occasion to visit New York?

Yours sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg -