November 24, 1954

John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
440 Fourth Avenue
New York 16, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Polhemus:
Thank you for yours of the 23 inst.

Ag I did not attend the Sevag-Resistance symposium in person, I
ean only guese at its contents, but I think I can mile a fairly accurate
judgment from the name of the editor, the list of contributors, and a
review that appeared in Science last week by Prof. Gerard.

I would say that the chief distinction is that the Sevag project
was a symposium, ani as such directed specifically to people now actively
engaged in research on antibiotic reaistance. Also it represents the
views of a maber of authors on a series of dissonnected topics, ani all
of them on a ourrent basis. We are planning an interpretive monograph
which will endeavor to synthesise the valid conclusions from th whole
literature; the symposium velumewwill certaibly be a useful primary source.
We are also direo ting our effort*to the interests of medical students and
others who wuld prefer a more comprehensive secondary source of infor-~
mation on the whole subject, including its historical and theoretical, as
well as contemporary experimental aspects. In my opinion, thia is a suffi-
cient distinction to justify our work (and a publisher's investment).

-I must add, however, that Gerard's review and Sevag's own record in
print themselves provide a strong incentive for us to proceed with our
monograph. The symposium, to justify the kind of conclusion with which
Professor Gerard expressed, that there was no operational distinction
between various theorles of drug resistance, mist have been either deficient
or biassed in its representation. (See our outline chapter 5 which concerns
this question; 1t is indeed the very core of our discussion. Whatever con-
clusion a given investigator may adopt, I think most of your competent
authppities [for example Professor Wagner] would agree that the distinction
between these theories 1s not only operationally possible, but of critical
importance for the understanding of drug resistance, as well as for general
biological implications). I imply no criticism of Professor Gerard, he
speaks, so to speak, as a bystander from another disciplins, but is is
precisely bec aise he could be misiedd that we feel the necessity of our
Sinterpretive" writing. In many respects, he would typify the most alert
but unfortunately poorest informed element of our hoped-for audience.

Yours sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetives