5th December, 1974

Dr. Alexander Rich !
Department of Biology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology '
Cambridge

Mass. 02139, U.S.A. :

  '

Dear Alex





Shortly after your last letter arrived Max came to speak to me'@ discuss whether he
should write a letter to New Scientist along the lines you had suggested. I had to tell him
that I was strongly againetuch a step. Any such letter would have to be agreed by both
parties, otherwise it would lead to further public exchanges. I told Max that I thought it
most unlikely that any such agreement could be reached and that in any case preparing
the draft would certainly lead to further acrimonious private enchanges.  Finally, I` am
against any further publication of any sort as it only draws people's attention again to a
matter they would otherwise forget. I should point out that both sides feel that the article
maligned them - see, for example, the final paragraph of t.hzw Scientist article.
Sydney, who happened to be present, independently advised m= I did.  Max has agreed
to write to you in this 8ense.

I also think it would be better if you stopped trying to convince yourself that you are
the only injured party. Rverybody now agrees that Kim had independently gone a long way
towards the present structure.  There is a difference of opinion as to whether he had
gone s the way by the time of the Madison meedng, but this is a fairly small matter and
could be cleared up if I exerted myself by cross-examining all the people concerned.  I
am reluctant to do this unless it is considered essential.

The major accusation against you personally is not that you gave an incomplete account
of your new structure at Madison but that you described your old structure in public while,
in private, selected people there were told about Kim's new structure.  I have listened to
the tapes and there is Iittle doubt that you described a structure with the GlS-C48 base-
pair as W-C and not reversed W-C.  Moreover you have admitted in your considered
letter to me dated 9th August (Parge Siz: "I feel I made.. . . . . compedtive spirit) that your
action "was the root cause of all the misunderstanding". People like Brian Clark, who  t ,"!
are familiar with the details of tRNA, could see that in your talk you were &scribing,       1
albeit rather vaguely, your old structure. Yet within a few weeks you had submitted
your new one for publication.  No wonder my colleagues were upset. Even though sub-
sequent knowledge has shown that they misjudged you, the fault for the misunderstanding
was largely your own, though they were also somewhat to blame for not giving full details
of their structure at Madison,

If any public statement is to be made I shall feel bound to insist that
                 Since I consider%&%iZcts~~      '
plus your admission of blame, @gut on Public record*

. . . continued/


Dr. Alexander Rich

- 2 -

5th December, 1974

endrely against your own interests I would strongly advise you to agree, as soon as
possible, to the proposal in my letter of 22nd October. Although you may feel that
your reputation has suffered, my informadon is that there is now considerable sympathy
for you in sciendfic circles because it is felt by many that the original changes against
you are unfair, As this is in part true, I suggest you leave it that way rather than risk
antagonising people again as might well happen if a detailed description of your actions
at Madison was spelt out in public.

Perhaps, after reflection, you would let me know whether you and your collaborators
are now prepared to apee to the fifth paragraph in my letter ti you of 22nd October.
We could then go on to consider matters like the exchange of co-ordinates, etc.

F, H. C. Crick

.