NEW YORK UNIVERSITY—-BELLEVUE MEDICAL CENTER

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
477 FIRST AVENUE, NEW YORK 16, N.Y.

DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY January 27, 1955 OREGON 9-3200

Dr. Joshua Lederberg
Department of Genetics
College of Agriculture

The University of Wisconsin
Madison 6, Wisconsin

Dear Josh:

Enclosed is a copy of the note I sent to Plumb along with a copy of the last
version of our joint communication. I'm very pleased that you agree that this
is a desirable procedure. If I get any answer from Plumb or have a visit from
him I'll keep you informed.

I presume that "ACLU" in your last letter refers to the American Civil Liberties
Union. It happens that I have an application blank on my desk which I'll fill
out right now. You may consider that you've made a sale!

With respect to the Detroit meeting, I think I have already indicated that I

was responsible for getting the committee to invite you. I realize that your
work has been so purely genetics that one might question whether you would be
an appropriate speaker at a biochemical Symposium. However, as I conceive it,

& major function of this meeting is to get an exchange of information and ideas
between some distinguished enzymologists and some distinguished students of
cellular physiology (including physiological geneticists). Since I knew your
reading and interests extend far beyond what one might call the geography of

the gene, I was hoping you might care to give a critical evaluation, in terms that
enzymologists would ‘understand, of the present state of the problem of gene
function. I would think, for instance, that it would be very good to have

Norm Horowitz's defence of the one~gene-one-enzyme hypothesis balanced by a
eritical, analytical account of the ambiguities of this notion and the various
criticisms that have been leveled at it. And I would think that a much more
objective version of this problem could be produced by you than by a passionate
antagonist such as Bonner or Mitchell. In addition, it would seem to me very
desirable if the audience would have spelled out to them, in words of not too
many syllables, the problems raised by the fact that genes defined as crossover
units are no longer congruous with genes defined as functional units. I realize
that you do not specialize in elementary expositions; but since this is an

area in which, to the best of my knowledge, you have not been writing in detail,
I thought you might like to put together an essay along these lines, and might also
get some pleasure out of the rest of the program.

Sincerely,

Bernard D. Davis
January 27, 1955

\-
Ww
ey

New York Times _ Reda
New York 36, N.Y. +>

Dear Mr. Plumb: _

Enclosed is a copy of a letter to your editor which Dr. Joshua Lederberg
and I wrote while at Woods Hole last sumer. This letter was never sent’
because we learned from Dr. Eagle that he had not accepted ‘an invitation *
to discuss his paper with the press, and so it did not seem appropriate *
to send the editor a letter that was so critical of the reporter. Mean-°*"*
while we returned’ to our respective institutions and did not find it
feasible to modify the letter suitably by exchange of correspondence.

It now seems clearly too. late to draw this iesue to the editor' 8. ; ~
attention. I am communicating with you, however, because I have’ since’ a
seen & number of excellent reports by you on other topics, and so ow.
I thought you might want to know that your news report on the Rutgers. .
dedication, in contrast, was considered thoroughly unsatisfactory and
disturving by all of the many biologists with whom I discussed it.
Dr. Lederberg joins me in the decision to send you the enclosed tetters: .
which sets forth briefly the reasons: for this dissatisfaction.

 

Ir you would care to have a “@iseussion. of this issue," or, of. ‘general ~ be,
ones concerning relations’ between scientists and the press, I would i
welcome a visit from you., I am very. much interested in. the problem of | i"
informing the public on selentific matters, and I would particularly.” :
like an opportunity to explain to you,’ in greater detail than was,
possible in the enclosed letter, ’ ‘what is. 80) ‘Gisturbing, a, the’ -peeud
scientific. Lysenkoist doctrine.”

ae lel gd: Dom poy higyt
. Re ae

  

    

raey
eta

  

ty
ne P pdsit hava te elas: RAS Ty WRU at

wo . Bey \n
: Sheik OWA Ta oD : oS fownter, a.
obes LE DL sosaibly sould. Sincerely yours,
four abc ly,
Bernard D. Davis
we OPS deel pone

cc: Dr. Joshua Lederberg