OTTOM UP AND SEAL.

NO OTHER ENVELOPE SHOULD BE LSED.

BB

FOLD SIDES OVER AND THEN FOLD

| May 1, 19530

Dear Luca: -

) Twas very sorry to hear of. the disruption in your family and your work.

As to the paper, I shall be dispace disappointed if its appearance in
the proceedings of the congress is prevented, :but only if asa consequence
of an excessive regard for my privdlege as co-author. Your: letter has just
this minute arrived, and I have not had an Opportunity to study the draft.
However, I would have every confidence in the rather amazing coincidence of
our attitudes, and would not require an inspection of the final draft. It
may be questioned whether the Proceedings are the best place for publication,
as they are usually delayed, but Chain probably has in migd a special sympo-
sium on chemotherapy, and this wotild be an excellent place. I will look at
the draft during the next couple of days. However, I am extremely fatigued
and my literary cortex is not-up—to par. After completing my previous notes
on this, I have had to take part in two successive revisions of a ms. with
Stocker, and to complete a paper with. Edwards. This makes me now ragher
unenthusiastic about still another paper for the Rome Congress. However, may
I suggest the following: 1) Invite Stocker (London School of Hygiene) to give
a 40® paper on Salmonella transduction {whie with which he is quite familiar,
both the background, and details of his own work,] and 2) if you wish, we can
jointly re-present the substance of our Genetics or JGM paper as a discussion
of the E. coli story. Come to think of it, Stocker has also had a year's ex-
perience with pneumococcus transformation in MacLeod's laboratory, with some
very interesting, so far unpublished data. The most balanced approach might be
to ask Stocker to present the comparative genetics of Salmonella, pneumococcus
[and by review,Hemophilus], asking him to emphasize his own experimental findings.
I have no opposition to. Alexander as well, except that this may tend to over-
balance the program, and. she has been rather nafve in genetic interpretatton.
If we are to give 2), I mst ask you again to adopt the chief burden of pre-
paring it. However, the substance is already in 2 papers, and there is no need
to publish at any great length. All of twis is predicated on our own disappointing
conclusion that we must abad abandon hope of travelling to Europe this summer,
We simply have not been able to find the funds. The economy drive of our new
administration played sons part in preventing the possibility of official airforce
transport, and the Nat. Science Foundation offered a grant of $300, less than
RE 20%. of our minimum extipated expenses, [Frankly I am a little relieved. The
thought of now making all the necessary preparations would have been terrifying. ]

You are probably wiser not to join in polemic with Yudkin. Spiegelman tells

me that Hinshelwood himself (at the SGM) severely criticized Yudkin®ag approach

as an untenable, compromise. I have only Sp.'s version of the story, and have
not yet seen the paper. I am sending the filter promptly. Partly as a result
of my own accident, I will have it prepared by-our glassblower to shorten the
‘tube, and leave it ready for the simple sealing on of the vertical arms.

I will try to ignore the rhetoric of your draft. I hope Jinks will not
seriously influence any other aspect than this. E.G. in his paper with Rees he
omits the most likely explanation of heterokaryotic stability: that the hyphae
with the most adaptive ratios (achieved by sampling fluctuations) grow most
rapidly as a whole. His criticism of reverse—mutation work was specious. But
he has also made some affirmative contributions.

To return to the subject of the program. Szilard is no longer serious ly
concerned with mitagenesis; Novick has made the most important contributions to
spontaneous mutation study, is an excellent speaker, and will be in Rome. I
would urge that you invite him. You may have to ask Demerec, as dd a matter of
polity: assez dit. Pontecorvo is much more likely to be at Rome than Roper.

I am not certain that lysogenicity has to be on the genetics program (it will
probably be considered elsewhere, and you should verify this before going any
@my_further. But it lysogenicity is taken up, you will have to ask Lwoff.
Instead, it might be more appropriate to have the topic genetics of phage,
and to consider Visconti, Levinthal, Doermann as among the younger men.
Niscolo would do very well, I think.

I do not want to oo taphesize/ this by leaving it to the end, but

pethaps this is not the time to ask you to think about it. From the experience
of Spicer and ES Anderson, you would hikely have an excellent likelihood of
support from the UN World Health Organization for a travelling fellowship,
even for three to six months. Yo position at a public health laboratory
, greatly reinforces these chaaces, foul urge you to look into the matter,

if there is any occasion when you feel you have the time. The program seams
to be, administered from Geneva:-addvess the Director-General, W.H.0.,° -
Palais des Nations. I would gladly try the same, but ‘the fellowships are
preferably given to countries othe# than the US and UK, °° ©

"You may expect my couments wlth a tew days.

 

 

an a