I'm just returning from a quick trip to St. Louis where I had my first good chance to talk at some length with Mel Cohn.
He has a well designed and well executed system for studying antiphage and I have to say at the outset that he is certainly
finding "double yielders". I don't think the discrepancy is due so much to the precision of his test (which is,
to be sure) rather laborious but to the character of his antigen and technique of mi[ . . .]ization. There is some circumstantial
evidence that double-yielders arise mainly under maximum int[ . . .] stimulation so as, so to speak, to swamp the responding
system. Furthermore he s[ . . . ]d strongly first with one antigen and only then with the second. On the whole this might
fit more easily with a hypermutability hypothesis than a pre-fixed clones idea, but of course the experiment is not decisive
for either one. Even so, the incidence of nonyielders: anti T-1; anti T-5; double yielders was about 250:15:7:3 which I suspect
is statistically significantly different from your summary; perhaps not.
Mel said he and Ed Lennox are in correspondence about your ms. He has a number of criticisms, many of which are reasonable
to some degree, and some of which I have voiced myself, but none seem to me crucial. I hope you will get this critique and
will reply in due course, in the same constructive spirit in which it is written. We are both looking forward to your coming
to Stanford, Mel was independently thinking of inviting you to come as his guest, and I am sure we will have a happy and exciting
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
time -- inter alii, rectifying the source of the indicated discrepancies, which can only lead to a deeper insight. He has
similar aspirations in clonal analysis, although our approaches differ enough this should be mutually helpful.