Many thanks for your note of December 26 and for all the interesting odds and ends of correspondence you kindly sent with
it. I am glad the problem about the Avery Griffith meeting seems now to have been pretty clearly settled.
I would be very interested to know how and in what form all your recent researches into this problem materialize. As I mentioned
previously I am concentrating more on the period 1860-1900 which I find most intriguing.
My guess is that biologists did in general think that DNA was "important"; but certainly not necessarily others such
as organic chemists. I remember having quite a violent argument with a distinguished organic chemist in 1946 when I pointed
out that I saw no reason in principle why DNA should not contain as much specificity as proteins. Did not quite a number of
scientists consider its role was primarily structural and supporting in those early days - or at least providing a mechanism
for duplication, without necessarily bearing the necessary specificity for transmission of heritable characters? (I am avoiding
the use of the word "information" since I think I am right in supposing this came very much later: was it not as a
result of a letter you and others wrote to Nature sometime in the '50's?)