corte Department of Biology
Princeton University

FP. 0. Box 704

Sunday, December 31, 1961

br. L. V. Berkner

Chairmen, Space Science Board
National Acedemy of Sciences
Washington 25, DB. C.

Dear Lloyd -

I must apologize for

the long delay in responding to your request for
suggestions aad comment on the

xeorganization of the Space Science Board.
that I have no suggestions relative te a re-
organization, ae such. And what I am now going to suggest is concerned more
with a piece of business that I would like to see the Board, in its old or
new form, trensact.

the

This concerns the overall picture of fe sciences effort in the
space program. My suggestion is simply that the time is ripe fer a separate
document, pexhaps in published form, to issued by the Board embodying a
set of definite judguents as to pricrit and needs in the life science
effort es a whole. I realize of course t we have made public statements
on several poiuts, either ia official Board Memoranda or in the less "official"
papers several of us have written. But these, even collectively, fail te come
to grips with seweral things I have in mind, and lack the punch a single
document would have. I hope, therefore, that if you and my biological col-
leagues on the Board agree, that you will set thie an an urgent task for
Lederberg, Lembertsen, Martline and myself. If it is to be useful it should
be done soon while Homer Newell and Chuck Roadman are stili, presumably,
feeling their way in the new NASA structure.

gis

The primary function of such a document as I have in mind would be to
set out explicitly the role of the life sciences in the total program, sand
to define rather strengly a hierarchy of priorities among the several objec-
tives. %t would include aleo some comments on how we feel these objectives
will, probably, be best attained.

My principal worry stems from e definite impression I have from experi-
ence as 4 MASA consultant that the people fn Clark Randt’s old orgenization
(they are still there, of course, reshuffled) have given far too much weight
to what we, on the Boerd, ere calling Envircumental BMology, and only lip
service to the view that the Exobiology issues are the only first-rank bio-
logical questions at stake. Thus I would like to see a published report re-
enuphasizing this. It would set out priorities as follows:

(1) Exobiolegy

(2) Man in Space
(3) Environmental Biclegy

in that sequence. And it would go on te consider what should be done, and
how, to pursue then.
-2-

In the case of Exobiclogy, for instance, we are not, in my view, doing
enough or going about it the right way. Legerberg's laboratory is the only
one that is doing « really significant job. MASA continues (as of a few months
ago) to rely om unsolicited contract proposals, mostly from industrial organi-
zations exploiting the opportunities created by the program. If we all feel 8-
as I take it we do -~ that the question of extraterrestrial life is rine

fic in the lide science program, and worthy of huge expendi-

tures then it is ovr responsibility to state flatly and strongly we ere cot
doing enough, in the right way, to achieve it.

She Exobiolegy program merits, and demands, a National Institute approach,
where there would be a enall permanent nucleus of people and a large program of
(well-rewarded) visiting fellows. The latter would be to attract very bright
people from all serte of disciplines to come for a time -~ hear what the problems
were, and have their brains picked etc. ‘The permanent institute people would be
doing, apart from the obvious ad hee jobs, s wide spectrum of work on microbial
physiology, and biechemistry. A fraction of the large sums now being awarded to
indifferent proposels could put such an institute on its feet.

We are all concerned, I take it, with the fact thet the money available in
the space program fer exceeds -- speaking wow of the life sciences only -- the
talent; and te some extent the problems, that are available. This hes created
an opportunity for exploitation by industry and by the second-rate in the uni-
vwersities. I am wery much afraid that the MASA program Mr. Webb alluded to at
our last Board meeting -- I have in mind his suggestion of a large number of
Space Science Institutes in the universities -- will only aggravate the present
situation. The money and research facilities this program will make available
are likely to be seized on by opportunists - either among individuals or
adainistrations - as something too goed to pass up. My point here is a strong
feeling that we (nationally spesking) should go slow in setting up such
inetitutes until well-defined and good problems are involved (e.g. Exebiology)
and especially until firet-rate people become interested. Let us not work
on probleme unless good scientists think them good enough to werit their attentica.

The new Ames Laboratory has me worried in this respect. ‘The permanent NASA
people in the life eciences there are not very good and recent information
suggests they ere repidly expanding the place and the program, but not around
exobiology. What is the aim and the program at Ames?

i am afraid this is already too long. There are other things to say especially
concerning the reletion of the man im space program to the questions of general
Environmental Biology. But the purpose of my letter hes been only to suggest the
kind of things I have in mind - not to thrash out all of them now. In closing let
me restate what I said at the last Bound meeting: in my view « strong clear
statement from the Board on these “policy” matters would be of far greater
importence and utility then e dozen documents from panels on detailed technical
deeves. The life sciences space program nationally is in a mess in my view; end
an increase of budget and opportunities for second-rate institutes will only
increase the meses.

With kind regards,
Cordially,

/af C. S$. Pittendrigh

for.