CQgry COPY

STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Medical School
Palo Alto, California

Department of Genetics
School of Medicine
January 3, 1961

Dr. Hugh Odishaw

National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Hugh:

Ostensibly this is a reply to your letter of December 15th to
Pittendrigh, cc to Novick and m=veclf. I hope you realize that I am
Novick's limited partner in this enterprise and whether you do or do not
get a manuscript will depend mainly on his initiative and available time.

Over the past few months, I have been thinking more and more what
the role of the Academy should be in the further development of the
national space program. As NASA develops its own operational organization,
it is bound to appear, and altogether not without substance, that the Board
is duplicating some functions that are already well taken care of. I am
not much worried about external criticism on this but I think it is
important not to waste people's time when this is such a precious commodity
these days. Apart from some of the specific consultative responsibilities
that the Board has undertaken, one should be able to argue with some force
that the very existence of the Board will continue to be of indispensable
value in maintaining the integrity of our national program.

As you know, the aspect of our space policy that I am most concerned
about is man-in-space. I am concerned, on the one hand, that we are being
committed to a program that has not been well-thought out strategically,
perhaps even tactically, which may be not only a waste of resources, time
and effort, but may actually do us a great deal of harm from a political
standpoint. On the other hand, I have the opposite concern that if man-in-
space is a legitimate program that we should be supporting, it has been pre-
sented in such a fashion as to antagonize a large segment of the scientific
community and this can only do the program itself and the whole national
space effort a great deal of harm. What I cannot understand is why the
Board has failed to come to grips with this program during at least the
last two years. I do not think it an adequate reply that man-in-space is
to be separated from science-in-space and that only the latter is the
Board's responsibility.

Perhaps NASA or the Services or both have already made a study of our
national objectives in manned exploration which would furnish an adequate
basis of national policy. But if this is the case, the document is not
widely known to exist and should be given critical attention.
Dr. Odishaw, cont. January 3, 1961

I do not believe that this is a problem that can be relegated to one
of the small subcommittees of the Board, although, of course, Lambertsen's
committee should be in a position to collect some of the more important
technical information. What I would like to press for is that (1) the
matter of national policy in manned exploration be on the agenda as a
major item for the next meeting of the Board and (2) that NASA and the
Services be pressed to furnish policy information in this area for review
by the Board. We should hope to end up with a statement, preferably
from NASA but if not, from the Board, that could clarify our goals and
serve to mitigate the present very harmful division of purpose. This may
be a messy situation but if we do not, even if necessary on our own
initiative, tackle problems of this kind then I wonder if we are
effectively discharging our responsibilities.

Yours sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics