Dept. Genetics,

University of Visconcin,
“Madison 6, VvAsconsin.

Noveriber 2, 195.

i) Gerard ,
Department of : ‘nysdolosy,
University of Chicrco,
Chicago 37, Illinois.

Dear Ur. Gerard:

Thank you very much for your letter invitine a contribution te
YhysLological Reviews. The title susccested, "Un Micelluler genetics"
was particularly appeciing, for I have felt that the circunseri tion
of microbial genetics was an artificial one which included subjects
(ees, crossing-over! which belong to forral senetics, and excluded
others which would make for a more coherant outlock.

Unfortunately, your letter caught we at a time when I have just been
recovering from certain writing com-dtacats, ond ar: involved with others.
Foo this reason, before accepting your cordial invitation, I world like
to propose certain qualifications. Since these ray not be in accord with
with your editorial plans or poldcies, I wich to ta’ this ooortunity
to discuss them wit> -ou informally before eloorg a definite commitment.

Firstly, the eoriest date by whic: | sould conveniently orevare a
manuscript would be february 15, 1952. If the p.ver is sehedule’ Zor
1952 publication, this deadline might be cnacceptable.

Further, I must senfess to a tack of interest in preparing the usual
type of owr-ary review. I hove I've done ny share of that cort cf thing
in 148 (in Peredity} and 104) (in Annunl Review of ° ‘derobiolo: sy). The
Annual Reviews sees to be followins 2 policy of resuler subliention of
reviews in <icrobial genetics and plysiolopical renetics which tales care
of the mest ceute needs for suvcarization of nublicationc. It hapsens,
hovever, that I have had tc give some thought to the bearinc of nolerh
genetic research on +e clussical ‘e11 Theory. I propcee, thevecarc, an
essay on 'Genetdce ar?) the Cell Theory’, but an not cortain how aoorouriete
& vehisle the [hysie’ogical Reviews would be. Such un eosay would orobatbly
include: quite as cou:rehensive review of “unicellular seietics’ as would
be involved in a more formal reviev. Nowover, I would Hove thet 1t were
quite clear that I had a specific point of view to cx ound.

 

If the notion of a speculative criti-ue rather thea an objective sum
mary appeals to you and to the board of editors, I will be gind to tale
on the assignment -- indeod will be crateful for the o oorthnity.

Yours sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg,
Associate .rofessor of Senctics-