MAR 13 1967
American Society for Microbiology
NEWSLETTER
Northern California Branch

 

Vol. 2 March 1967 No. Ll

 

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE Dear NCB-ASM Member: The attention of your Executive
Committee during the past two years has been directed
mainly toward technical and organizational problems. The publication of a
newsletter and the establishment of a functioning Program Committee were re-
sultant administrative acts solving at least for the moment the problems of
regular communication with local branch membership and the thoughtful plan-
ning of meetings. Other problems were considered and at least temporary
steps were proposed and carried out. Two more problems remain at present
unsolved: the creation of a Membership Committee and the rewriting of our
constitution. We are now taking steps to work these matters out.

Besides the inevitable organizational readjustments which will be called
for by the membership, there are matters of substance and other matters af-
fecting the quality of our local branch which may now be considered. Two of
these occur to me at this time. The first is the part which the local branch
plays in the national affairs of the ASM. One national affair has recently
come to my attention by chance. Let me quote from an article by Elinor
Langer on "Chemical and Biological Warfare: The Research Program:"

“Additional intellectual assistance for Detrick comes from
the American Society for Microbiology, which maintains a
permanent Detrick advisory committee. In 1966 the President
of ASM was Riley D. Housewright, scientific director of Fort

Detrick."

The committee reported by Elinor Langer exists. In 1962 it was "Advi-
sory to the Chief of the Chemical Corps." In 1964 it was "Advisory to the
Chemical-Biological-Radiological Agency of the U.S. Army." And in 1966 it
was "Advisory to the U.S. Army Biological Laboratories." I am told that the

committee was begun about 1942 and that, therefore, the ASM involvement in
biological warfare is long standing. The role of the ASM seems clear in
this matter since the constitution provides that the ASM will "stimulate
scientific investigations and their applications." There are many questions
which require clarification, however. For example, how much basic and spe-
cialized knowledge in microbiology is of importance in biological warfare?
Are all of us aiding in the development of weapons by being microbiologists?
Is present biological warfare capability as massive as present atomic war-
fare capability? If not, could it be? Who determines the direction which
biological weapons development takes and who determines the grounds for use
of biological weapons? Does the existence of an ASM advisory committee to
the Army Biological Laboratories imply a moral commitment of the ASM to the
precepts of biological warfare or a directive influence of the ASM in the
development of weapons?

The ASM may have a long-standing policy on biological warfare. What
position will our local branch take on this policy? It is about time we be-
came informed on the subject of biological warfare, if only to take a con-
scious part in the “advisory” activity of the ASM. For a start I recommend
the two articles by Elinor Langer in the January 13, 1967 and the January
20, 1967 issues of Science. To supplement that I suggest we have a local
branch meeting soon to consider the questions above and to hear from our
national leadership.
The second matter for consideration is the quality of our meetings. The
Program Committee can determi:ie subjects to be covered, the time and place of
the meetings, and other administrative matters, but the quality of the meet-
ing is largely up to the participants. Traditionally, both at national and
at local branch meetings short "papers" are presented. Generally these papers
are ten minutes in length followed by five minutes for discussion. Recently
the efficacy of these papers has been questioned. One of our members had sug-
gested that at national meetings the papers be three minutes long. For local
branch meetings opinion differs from the radical, who would eliminate them
from our meetings to the conservative, who prefers the papers as they have
been. I hope that in the coming months we may discuss this matter, perhaps
determining the purposes, if any, to be served by the papers. Experiments
with the format and presentation of the papers will be especially helpful in
illuminating these purposes.

Certainly one area of dispute will center around the aptness of the term
"paper'! for these presentations. In an article on ''The Art of Talking About
Science” (Science, December 30, 1966, p. 1613), Lawrence Bragg distinguishes
between a "talk" and a "paper" by pointing out that a talk's primary object
"is to create a state of mind, or point of view, not to convey information."
To this end, Bragg goes on, a talk must differ both in style and content from
a paper. For our local branch meetings this difference must transcend the
obvious oral vs. written difference because our talks are presented to what
amounts to a general audience and hence must differ also from talks appropri-
ately delivered to specialists. I urge those who may present talks before
our local branch in the future to read Bragg's article and to bring your
opinions on it to my attention.

Sincerely yours,

Alvin J. Clark, President, NCB-ASM

 

DR. JACOB FONG i

The colleagues, friends and students of Dr. Jacob Fong wish to
express their feelings of sadness and loss as a result of his
death on Tuesday, February 28, after an extended illness. Dr.
Fong was born on October 29, 1913 in Canton, China, received
his Ph.D. from the University of Southern California in 1944,
and was Chairman of the Department of Bacteriology, University |
of California, Berkeley, from 1963 to 1965. His research
covered fields of microbial and viral pathogenicity, problems |
of viral replication, and role of cells in immunity against mi- |
crobes, tissue transplants and tumors. He was a member of ASM
and had recently been nominated as Councilman at Large for the
American Academy of Microbiology. We shall miss his productive |
and serious contributions to research, his kindly and consider- |
ate attitude toward students, and his thoughtful and stimulat- ,
ing lectures.

 

 

LIST OF SUSTAINING MEMBERS Cutter Laboratories; Caw Engineering, Inc.;
Bryant Laboratory, Inc.; A. Daigger and Company;
Microchemical Specialties Co.; Ivan Sorvall, Inc.