UNITED STATES
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

IN REPLY REFER TO: WASHINGTON 235, D. C.

BNB:MRZ

December 14, 1950

Dr. Joshua Lederberg
Genetics Department
University of ‘fisconsin
Nadison, ““isconsin

Dear Josh:

I am sorry to be a little late in writing, but I have been unable to
get around to it earlier. I shall attempt to answer the questions
in your last two letters concerning the contract.

Vv

It will be unnecessary to send reprints of a curriculum vitae.

The March lst date should be G.K. It will require approximately a
week after we receive it to process it here in the “ashington office.
The biz question is the size of the backlog in the Chicago Gperations
Office where the contract will actually be negotiated. I think that
they should be able to do it by «arch Ist.

I do not anticioate any major changes in the ANC policy as you

suggest in your letter of December 5. Hence, 1 think it is all right
to proceed with the small contract. As to overhead, we have attempted
to duplicate the .I.H. overhead rate of 3. ‘nis is 83 of the total
contractual amount, and the bulk of our contracts nave been written
with this figure, or a lower one.

The formal application could be addressed to the Atomic Energy Commission
while the letter of transmittal could be addressed to me. «as to reports,
we request a 200 word outline of the scope and progress of the research
to be sent imuiediately upon completion of the contract negotiations, a
report after one year of activity, and additional optional reports as the
investigator may wish to call our attention to significant results. I
think the annual report is useful for supporting the renewal request. I
am sure that you will agree with this rather sensible attitude concern-
ing reports.

In conclusion, therefore, I think we can proceed with your contract ver
3 ? £ 8
quickly upon receiving the formal application.

Very truly yours,

Yay (Ki Gatle—

Geneticist, Biology Sranch
Division of Biology and sedicine