January 15, 1957

Dr. James A. Jenkins
Department of Genetics
University of California
Berkeley 4, California

Dear Jia:

Thank you for your letter of the 11th, and for the Orientation Hand-
book. I am pleased to learn that your discussions have reached this favor-
able point.

It will take me some time to work out a tentative plan for the laboratory
development, but I will send you my notes as soon as possible. Please keep
in mind that 1t would be very difficult for me to wind up my responsibilities
hers appreciably before July 1, 1958, sc there is at least some time to
work out such details, if the questions of principle can be settled.

The point about which I have the deepestvapprehension is the matter of
"nepotism." Since this is an issue on which succeeding administragions
might take different, or more legalistic, views, we have to be sure we
have a common understanding on any 'solution'. Your letter indicated that
Esther might ‘apply for a grant on her own'. If this means that she would
have to be the direct legal recipient of the grant, I can foresee some
difficulties: most granting agencies are more or less constrained to
make their gifts to recognized non-profit corporations or institutes as
legal recipients. Her opportunities to receive direct fellowship subsi-
dies would be very mich more limited, and we would have to be confident
of a successful arrangement with a specific agency in advance. On the
other hand, if thie means that a grant for her support can be accepted
by the University through another department -—— say Profeseor Stanier in
Bactariology — it might constitute an acceptable solution, provided both
the means and the end were understood and approved by competent University
authorities. One other approach occurs to me, but I would need legal advice:
namely that an exisiting research corporation be found, or a new one
organized, that could handle such problems by arrangement with the Univer-
sity on the one hand, and the agencies on the other. It seems to me utterly
silly that a regulation of this kind —which is designed to forfend
real abuses in other contexts to be sure——- should frustrate and waste the
professional lives of trained and gompetent women who happen to be
married. For my own part, it would be impossible for me to maintain a
diversity of interests and personnel working smoothly without the help
of such an associate.

I could also point to our joint publications, which
are an imperfect measure of the role of her collaboration.
I am returning the Biography 1501 form, as requested, including some
of the inconsequential types of data that I know our own News Bureau likes
to keep on file.

Ags to the hood, I am sure we would be able to improvise. In due course,
however, I hope we will have a fully equipped chemical laboratory -- con-
venient facilities of that kind (within the bounds of our discussion on how
much biochemistry a physiological geneticist should do himself) represent
aw of the potential attractions of the appointment.

In muking our detailed plabs, it would be useful to know how much of
the following facilities will be available to the department at large, in
the same building: darkroom (I stromgly hope this can be shared); storeroom
(for general supplies) and shop (any mchine tools?) Some of the 2581 square
feet might be expeditiously shared for such facilities. I suppose Spencer
Brown is the person with whom I would deal most directly on such arrangements:
can you tell me just when he is returning? *

Some additional questions will undoubtedly come up. For example, one of
my present atudents is a Japansse national, another an Australian. The handbook
poimts to a number of reuis trictions on alien employment. Would such students
have any difficulty, on that account, a) in securing admission to the graduate
schocl, or b) in qualifying for research-assistantships? I would have thought
no, but a student now here (a Chilean national) has told me of rather bruscue
replies to her onn inquiries.

Then: should I assume that ‘payment of moving expenses' (p. 11) would apply
to my appointment?

There are other minutiae, but these can be deferred. We now realize we
have to face the problem squarely of making a decision, which we will do on the
assumption that the 'nepotism' problem will be satisfactorily dealt with. Mean-
while, I also have to furnish you with tentative laboratory and equipment plans.
You will realize that we cannot take a step like this lightly or hastily. For
our own peace of mind, however, we are determined to come to a fair conclusion
before we begin our tzavels (to Paris,London ani Glasgow and back in March, then
to Melbourne-vis San Franciscc- June throiigh Septegber), which gives us now
about six weeks. For a final conclusion, it may be desirable for me to visit
Berkeley again: if necessary I propose to do this early in April. Would it be
too much for me to ask your advance approval on this, so I can make arrangements
on the shortest notice?

May I give an outiine of the most optimistic assumptions, as I understand
them?

Now till March: straighten out major policy matters

April 1957 I visit Berkeley for final decision and details. Discuss prelimi-
nary lab. plans

June 1957 4 visit Berkeley (en route to Melbourne). Final lab. plans

about Jan 1958 7? remodelling on rooms 22-23 in progress. Visit Berkeley
to adjust details on this and order equipment, arrange
budget and grant transfers, etc.

duly 1958 ove to Beriwley.

1959-1960? netics Dept. moves to Glannini. ‘when?

Yours sincerely

Joshua Lederberg