9th fiovember 1967. Professor C.H. Yaddington, C.B.E., F.R.S., Newington cottage, 15 Blaoket Place, Em3bwgh. g , Scotland. I would not want to get into a long correspondence with you on the subject of vitalism in biology, because I think we really both agree on almost all the pointa involved, and the only differences between u3 are probably matters of emphasis. However, having had the opportunity to read your review again I thought I would write to make one or two points, Most ,of -. these are necessary because of the inadequate explanation in my boo&, whioh, aa you may have suspected, was written rather rapidly. To take o very minor point first:,the lectures were called 7s Vitalism Dead?" and I was very keen to have tha book published with this titles, but the university of Washington Press as3Ur8d me that th8 term `vitalismf was not understood in the States, and it was for this reason that the rather vague present title wa3 chosen. I now think they were wrong, and w8 should have stuck to th8 original one, Now about the question of quark&: One of th8 points, I W' 3hould have made in the book but did not wa3 that the structure k of thennualeus is almost completely irrelevant for biology. This is because the energies involved in altering nuclear structure are enormously greater than anything found in everyday ohemistry, upon which almost all biology is based (I admit I hardly mentioned quantum theory, based on it, consider that chemistry ID solidly of molecular biology we do not seem to need to get quantum mechanical oalculations). Of course one has to make Ucexplanation of ths effeots of radiation, but I doubt if these ar8 very fundamental for large parts of biology, even though in ths laboratory one is always using radiation traoe? as an indispensable research tool, In short I do not think the question whether quarks exist is likely to have any important repercussions on biology. dogmatic on this point, Of oourae one cannot be completely and in fact I se8 that at the top of page 11 I have allowed myself a small loop-hole, . Sinoe I wrote the book I have come to put vitalists into -2- profegaor C,H. Waddington, C*B*E.) PeR*Sa 9th November 19% three classee. The first class is the obvious sort, who believe in some sort of soul, which can in no way be explained by chemistry or physics or any elaborataon of them. The second class of vitalists does not necessarily believe in a soul, but he does I$elleve in so-called biotonlc laws, iague as to what these are. although he is often rather I think if anything degerves to be called a biotonic process it is the mechanism of Natural Selection. Whether there are other biotonic processes of equal importance 1 rather doubt, but it ml ht be fun to try to draw up a list of possible candidates. !i o be included the phenomenon must differ very considerably from any possible analogy found in the inanimate world. I do not think Elsasser'a argument about the immense number of combinations which have to be considered amounts to much in practice, because I think if on8 is studying the reproducible behaviour of organisms one is mainly concerned with the average behaviour, and not by rather rare freak events, just as one is in the physics of gases, f think he would have a point if he applied his argument to the course followed by evolution, since many only to have occurred 4 f the&M&@&23 involved there 88em and may well have dependad upon h *vJ o ce, rather minor accidenta In the environment. However, I have not read his latest book, which you mention9 so I suppose I shall have to get hold` of a copy to see what he hawL:thinks about this point. We did correspond about his earlier book, but I didn*t aeem to be making any headway with him. The third type of vitalist (although h8 ia so littla of a vltta2iat that he hardly dgsmves the, nama> is the person who believes that radically new laws of physics or chemistry are $hBtely to b8 discovered from studying biology. 1 have besn astonished to learn that Max Delbrtlok falls into thi8 cla88, and that this hope was his strongest motivation into going into biology, I have really nothing against this point of view, except that I suspect the discovery of such laws is rather~M!U.kely, I think there may be a real difference between them in the point that you make about the subjective nature of awareness, Of course I am familiar with this argument in a general sort of way, but I confess that not being a philosopher I have never really thaught about it in detail. If I examine my attitude of mind on this subject, I think it goes somewhat as follows. There is no doubt that awareness makes us uncomfortable; because we do not eeem to have any adequata explanation of it. I would regard an adequate explanation as something which removes this undeniable feeling of discomfort. I rsuspect that it will be removed, not for philosopher8 but for ordinary people, when we can describe the objective correlates of some particular fragment of awarene98. If I had to use an analogy Iwould point to the recent development in th8 study of dreams, The philosopher could < Professor 'CLH, Waddington, C,B,E., F.R.9. '. .gth November 1967. ., : ,:, , I, ., easily argue that,we can never kncw'when somebody is~dreaming: In practice we+have strong reaslon to suspect that when a person is a certain,sart of slet?p~'involving rapid eye movementhe is : 'probably dreaming, I am sure you are familiar with the sort ~ " ', of avidence that supports this hypcthesis. Accepting this we can then answer questions such as does'everybody dream every night, and for how long? I think that con3ciousn8ss or `I .' awareness will ceaa8 to be mysterious when w8 can describe the patterns. of nervou9 impulse, in particular parts of our brain, and can show in a detailed way that certain patterns ar8,associatsd with,certain thoughts. ',You could still argue that this would. not solve th8 problem since it lies in a different logical realm,`.: but .I think it would illuminate pr prssent difficulties to such an extent that zsnpbody would be, particularly bothered,about th8 ~philoso~ical di,fficulty. " ,, ; ,.- ;:':'L:' There are a number of ather points I could make. Ido agree al&r&th you that we really ought to know,a ot more about T?aturaL'Selsction,' and ,that there is cons-tan temptation to us8 ,, $ it in a rather loose wsy to.axplain almost 8verything. 3 also agree'that some topics- auch'as the tim8 When the soul. enters the human foetus have b88n rather fully, dealt with before,,though I think you willfind that there qtill exist int8Uigent people who.worry about that sortof thing (my secretary is one of them!), Finally, in aas8 you think f am haking rather a f&s I should ' like to thank'you for what is really a very friendly review of the, book, which should help to s&U quite a number of copi8s, but for the fact that the dock strike has mad8 it unobtainable in England, 'and I hava been hard pressed to find even a spar8 copy for myaalf! ,, "', n. " ,' ,- ,' ',' ', .' ._ ', : _ , ,,i' " : _ ). ,. ,. : F&C. Crick* *, _ ) : i .' ;_ : .' i ,: .,' .' .' ,' ., I " I . . -a " 6 ..__ .,, .' .' '. ,. ', 'i ,. , : ,' ,. * ,. " ,I ,,,I. : I: :' .'j' '. ", ! : , . .' * r '.; ~- ',