witMay,
Sr The No HE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
Gl Rockefeller mT
*\ University ie 1230 YORK AVENUE - NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021
Oo: i

% ae of OFFICE OF THE PRESIDINT

Prof, Wm. Massy
Vice President
Stanford University
Stanford Calif., 94305
6 August 1982
Deir Bill:

I had noticed in the press that there has been some
fuss ebout prior public statements on DNA-splicing provoking
deleys in the Patent Office with respect to Stanford's claims.

This led me to in_trospect again, what had my own
Statements on the matter been? You may or may not know that
my lab wes actively engaged in research on DNA-splicing in the
early 70s; but Stan had a far sharper experimental approach,
and it was no accident that he succeeded ahead of us. He has
also been very generous (and accurate) in crediting Vittorio
Sgaramella with some very important insights. These are well
known and do not impinge on the priority of the patent, as
far as I know.

Since 1962, I have given many talks about genetic
engineering -- e.g, to point out thet ‘cloning! might
eventually pose some problems of socisl decision. I was sure
I had sonewhcre meade sone specific speculations about DNA
Splicing; but until now, I could not locate anything very
concrete. Curiously, u sentence in a piece I did for Encyclopedia
Pritannica, ca. 1972, was elided by the editor; for what reason
I did not know.

Well, I did find what I was seeking; and as you cin see

See Virraes a, SAO

it is conerete enough! It is however speculation, and emphatically
does not report on Specific experimentcl realizations. In fect,

it is mainly about Kornberg, end what I viewed as the significance
of his work on DNdjreplicase -- & recently eccurate forecast as it
turned out.

The text in question was a radio broadcast on KZSU given
on Jan. 16, 1968 as part of a series that was later published by
Basic Books in 1970. I think the material enelosed gives adequate
pointers to document these attributions.

I have no idea whether such speculations have any bearing
on the patent. They are however in the public record, where they
are bound to be rediscovered, If they do have some bearing on the
patent, we would all obviously be vulnerable to substantial
criticism if there were any opening for imputed concealment. There
is no other advantage to me to pursue the matter; so unless I
Should get some concrete legal advice to the contrary, I will leave
the matter in your hands as the responsible officer of the university,
(end one with whom I had many prior discussions as a member of the
faculty on what Stenford's policy should be on Patents in molecular
biology.)

I will be back at the Genetics Dept. the latter part of
August; and I would be glad to see you if there is anything to talk
about further on this matter -- or in any case!

Yours,

Joshua Lederberg

ec: Stan Cohen

A

t

A.