STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS April 21, 1977 Dr. Donald Fredrickson Director, NIH Bethesda, MD 20014 Dear Don, Thank you for sending me the copies of the "From the NIH" sections. I found them extraordinarily interesting and I hope that as these are accumulated they may be useful in such contexts as presentations to Congress. Unfortunately they arrived just too late for me to be able to use them directly in some remarks that I had prepared myself for Congressman Flood's subcommittee. I am however, enclosing a copy of the latter with the hope of enrolling your own attention to some of the institutional issues that I mentioned there. I know of your own deep interest in the problem of "technology transfer." Both of us read the work that Comroe and Dripps did for the panel on biomedical research. That was a groundbreaking effort, but I'm sure that we would all agree that it is just scratching the surface of an inquiry into how discovery really takes place and the social engineering that might best serve public needs. But this is a self-exemplifying instance of the institutional problem that I mentioned earlier. It is very difficult for me to see any direct mech- anism whereby a person like myself can engage in that kind of interdisciplinary exploration and still satisfy my peers when it comes to the review of research projects. That is not an empty anxiety: there is a case just pending about which I have great trepidations. But it would not be appropriate for me to bring you into the concrete details while it is in the mill awaiting council action. I will let you know about it later, hopefully in a mood of less than total despair. . I was quite serious in indicating my own interest in the examination of the process of discovery and sometime I hope to have the occasion to share a little more with you about some of the tacks we have taken in that direction. Sincerely yours shua Lederberg rofessor of Genetics DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 * (415) 497-5052 APR 22 1977 decided on a DEFERRAL action for your above referenced renewal grant appli- cation in order to secure additional information. The Study Section found difficulty in formulating a more definitive recommendation because of the manner in which the material within the body of your application was pre-~ sented. Your specific aims have broadly stated in essence that your objec- tives are to study bacterial transformation. The research plan and protocols which you have presented to attain your objective(s) are similar, if I may use the analogy, to the outlines brushed in by an artist of international reputation. Unfortunately, the Study Section cannot view such a presenta- tion and in good faith fulfill its responsibility of public accountability for its judgments. What we need now are the finer brushstrokes that will paint in the details you have in mind so that others may find themselves better able to evaluate the finalized picture. Though the objective of studying transformation may be worthy, your overall ~ proposal does not suggest specific models, does not suggest specific mechan- isms for investigation, and does not describe specific experiments that might generate specific models for recombination. The other components of your proposal raise questions of a similar nature; exactly what and how are things to be pursued? I might add that the Study Section is not interested in re- |