Oatober 3, 1955

Mr. Dael Wolfle
Adminintrative Secretary
Science

1515 Mensachusette Avenue, N.7.
Washington 5, D.C.

Dear Mr. Wolfle:

Thank you for your message of September 29. I have taken the opportunity
to male some revisions along the lines suggested; I hope they will help to
clarify the issues.

I nope this letter is not going to be taken as a rebuttal in a polemic
debate. I realize that a report on an ddolated article cannot take the tine
to cower all sides; it may not have been realised that the interpretations
here were controversial. Indeed, I am willing to concede that the claims of
Jacob ani Wollman ae correst, as concerns the effect of mechanical disruption,
but I feel there is alao some possibility of one or more alternative inter-
pretations. My letter should help to completes the picture. ,

It is suggested that the news report is not an “editorial”. It may help
to minisise some readers’ confusion on this point (inoluddng mine) if 1% were
more definitely indicated what was quotation and what was the reviewer's view-
point. If nothing else, the prefatory memarke by MHA show that both are repre-
sented. For this reason, I would save the adverb "editorially" in the lst. sentence.

I had hoped that Dr. Glass would give me the benefit of his own advice on.
the letter, which is why I sent it through hia. It might have been sore appro-
priate to send it directly to you, ani I assume I should continue any corres-
pendence with yourself, accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg
Profesaor of Genstics

COs MHA