‘Statement to Genetics Department, Ad Hoc Committee on Plans

J. Lederberg May 4, 1957

My observations will be limited to the question of Medical Genetics,
which is just one of the problems before you.

1. Until now, medical genetics has been virtually neglected on this campus.
However, this is a field of growing importance, both in theory and in appli-
cations -~the latter may ultimately rival even those of genetics in agricul-
ture. There is a substantial unfilled demand for teachers and researchers

in the field; there is a danger that this may be met by students who have been
trained on too nartow a base, e.g. exclusively Human Genetics, to best further
the science, Wisconsin has engendered a unique opportunity to fill this gap,
owing to the proximity of our own strong group (already a nearly unique concen-
tration of genetic swience) to a now broadly research-minded medical school
administration.

2. The sound development of genetics within the medical school requires its
regognition as a body with a Bine of authority that is unambiguous and that
should be on a par with other departmental activities. This is a self-evident
axiom of administration; you need only to consider the requirements of a con-
verse situation of a basic science that could make a unique contribution to
Agriculture. The department is an organ of the college wherein it functions.

3. On the other hand, the organization of a Department of Medical Henetics

can be thought to promote the dangers of divergence, duplication, even rivalry.
Workable coordination, on the other hand, carbies the very great advantages

of a considerable overall expansion of genetics, on a sound scientific basis,
with the additional direct support of another important school in the university.

4. Medical Genetics cannot be thought of, in the foreseeable future, as a self-
sustaining program, but must and should rely heavily on the intellectual re-
sources of the Genetics Department. Conversely, we cannot retain our position
of leadership in academic genetics if we continue to igngre its connections
with medicine. Without the enthusiastic backing of mthe enetics Group as a
whole, Medical Genetics is unlikely to flourish. It would be tragic if this
unique opportunity were to be frustrated because of inability to solve problems
of organization.

5. By the existing hierarchy of administration, the Dean of each College has

the weight of authority Bor its operations, He is, of course, responsible to

the President and the Regents, and he could not function effectively without the
advice of the respective departments. Without far-reaching reorganizations that
shogld not be proposed lightly, our plans will have to respect these lines of
authority, and the fact that existing departmental policies are likewise ‘advisory’.
I therefore can see no workable alternative to the organization of the two
departments, es organs of the respective colleges, but these are not necessarily
the sole units of owr own policy deliberations.
6 It would be wrong ip principle to make a fundamental separation of
theoretical vs. applied genetics, (This is a more considered view than
some I have expressed earlier), The historimal success of our College

of Agriculture has been based on the unification of these progrems, How-
ever both departments should avoid, in future, dilution by prograns on

the far fringes of basic science which can safely be left to the 8clinical'
departments, e.g. Medicime or Agronany or Animal Husbandry. This principle
is reinforeed by the damage that would be done to individual programs by
too drastic surgery at this time.

7. How then to minimize the risks of divergent growth, risks that might be
especially harmful so long as Genetics remains in a state of relative impoverish-
ment, as compared for example with biological chemistry? If the premises
enunciated so far are sound, there is hardly any alternative but to supplement
the intre-college responsibility and authority of the Departments, with an
pater colle vehicle for comon policy, which we might call a Division of
netics. (This proposal may differ only in terminology and emphasis from
Professor Brink's onetime suggestion of a super-department.) Its memberhsip
would presumably be the faculty of the existing departments, though sane more
consideragion of the requisite strength of affiliation may be in order.

& The Division could be established etther by simple departmental agreement,
though assent of the deans, or higher officials, may be needed for its full
development. Its functions would be the formation of common policy on such
matters ags

a, Administration off advanced degrees.

b. Its owm membership, and the election of a chairman, as spokesnan.

c, Qualifications of proposed staff appointments and promotions to tenure,

d. Proposals on the areas of genetic research that require expansion, and
the means of financing them.

e. Courses, including seminars.

f£. Joint research facilities, and the allocation of space therein.

ge Related matters of common concern,

9, The Departments would retain their inescapable responsibilities in intre-
college affairs, internal budgets and administration.

10, The Division may have to be construed as a Caomitteeg of the Whole of the
two departments. It will still have to repert to the respective deans. However,
as a recognized deliberative body, 1t can be expected to have scareely less in-
fluence in its om affairs than do the Departments now, There will conceivably
be times when an overriding interest in one college will lead to actions contrary
to the judgment of the Dividion. Howevery this is no less possible under exis-
ting arbangements, both within and between the colleges. The establishment of

@ working Division capable of moral suasion is the most that fe within the

legal powers of the departments.

11. As regabds a), the Division would be responsible to the Graduate Sahool.

In relation to f) whether the Division could ever secure operating funds, outside
the College budgets, is a touchy question on which the deans! advice should he
obteined. A reasonable delegation of autherity to an executive camittee of the
Division (plausibly the two chairmen and its ow chaitman or executive secretary)
would keep the organization from begging too elaborate for the implementation of
its own policy and from impeding decisive action within the departments.
12. The coherence of thef Division would be reinforced by its having a

common building for basic genetic research. The ways and means for thia should
have a high priority. I would add that a propesal from the Division, represen~
ting two departments (and, we would hope backed by two deans) should make a
stronger case in securing funds, e.g. from WARF or even the NIH, than one alone.
Other devices should be considered as setting the tradition of Division action:
it ought to be % named as the formal spensor of the forthcoming Symposium {
(which 18 already formally a joint enterprise). If it can be approvBd, we should
think of a common stationery (see appendix) and of the Division as the laboratory
credit on pubjications, Such public-relations measures will have much to do
with public impreasions of our organization, and in turn influence the fact.
Perhaps they will also test the willingness of our deans to give some formal
recognition to the permeability of college boundaries.

13, The Division would mitigate the pecessity of joint appointments between

the departments, though wherever these are desirable, there should be no bar

to them, The entire question of joint appointments may need to be reviewed,

to be sure that sentiment and edministrative soundness are not at odds. How
ever, there should be a minimum of disturbance of existing relationships, for
good personal reasons. I would not relish the severance of my own ties, respon-
sihilities and privileges in Genetics, nor dees there seem to be any sound reason
in support of that suggestion, so long as the Division, not the Genetics Depart-
ment, is the vehicle of inter-college policy.

14. ‘The establishment of the Division would be an implicit endorsement of the
principles of purpose and organization set forward here. With whatever amend”
ments are apprepriate, these should be embodied in a formal document.

15. The preblems of scientific versus collegiate lines of organization are not
unique te “enetics, We have an opportunity to set an example to the University

on how these can be solved on principle. We have the ddvantage, not always so evident,
ef personal good will and common purpose.

16. Many of the postulated perils ef sepabation are hypothetical, and such as
might arise would Ukely be quickly taken care of on a personal rather than a
formal basis. However, I agree that sound organization should not rest entirely
on personalities, and it is easier to maintain a cemmon channel than to build one
to meet a crisis. The Division, at this moment be a formality, not distin-
guishable in its membership from the Department of Genetics. Convern for the
future should not obscure the realties of the present, 4nd especially the tre-
mendeus potential that the Medical Genetics development has for the impact of
genetica on research at this university. Nor should it obscure the history of
my own cordial rekationships within the department, and the corresponding likeli-
hood of their continuation. The building of safeguards ought not to be miscon-

atrued as a sign that the perils are imminent.

 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN {
Madison 6, Wisvonsin

Division of Genetics

Department of Henetics
College of Agriculture

Department of Medical Yenetics
School of Medicine