Skip to main contentU.S. National Library of MedicineU.S. National Library of Medicine

Profiles in Science
Pinterest badge Follow Profiles in Science on Pinterest!

The Sol Spiegelman Papers

Letter from Tracy M. Sonneborn to Sol Spiegelman pdf (107,323 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Letter from Tracy M. Sonneborn to Sol Spiegelman
Number of Image Pages:
2 (107,323 Bytes)
1946-10-19 (October 19, 1946)
Sonneborn, Tracy M.
Indiana University
Spiegelman, Sol
Reproduced with permission of David R. Sonneborn.
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):
Exhibit Category:
Enzymes and Genetics, 1940-1955
Metadata Record Letter from Sol Spiegelman to Tracy M. Sonneborn (October 14, 1946) pdf (122,829 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Box Number: 11
Folder Number: 42
Unique Identifier:
Document Type:
Letters (correspondence)
Physical Condition:
Series: Correspondence, 1946-1983
Folder: Sonneborn, T. M., 1946-1981
October 19, 1946
Dear Sol:
I understand completely the difficulties that you are having with Busch and only hope, for your sake and for the sake of the other investigators working on yeast, that you may eventually be able to clear up the difficulties that now confront you in sending out cultures. We, of course, are in nothing like the same circumstances as the others who want your cultures, since we wanted them for classroom use only. Thanks for your kind offer to send the diploid adaptable strains, but I think we must pass up your offer because our primary purpose would be to demonstrate some of the genetic phenomena rather than adaptation.
You have probably already seen the answer to your question about Preer's work for it has appeared in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy.
I was particularly happy to hear that Lindegren is revising his C.S.H. manuscript so that much of the discussion will become unnecessary. That would seem to me a much better way of doing things and I hope that it might be arranged that the discussors of his paper can see his revision so as to make corresponding changes in the discussion. I heard some comments about the St. Louis Missouri Botanical Garden Symposium which I hope will not be repeated about the C.S.H. Symposium. Apparently, there were some revisions in the manuscripts that made much of the discussion pointless, yet the discussers were not informed of the manuscript changes, and the consequence was that part of the discussion seemed quite pointless in print. I think you would do a good deed all around if you could use your influence to see that such blunders do not happen with respect to the C.S.H. papers. I should be glad, for example, if you would suggest to Lindegren that he and I exchange manuscripts in order to adjust our discussions correspondingly. I would be glad to make this suggestion myself, but I think that taking everything into consideration it might be more effective if it were initiated by a third person.
Our work on the killer substance has progressed with very gratifying rapidity within the last few months, and I hope to have an opportunity to discuss the matter with you at some length, perhaps in Boston if not sooner. As soon as I found out that we were to have a Biochemist, I made up my mind that the most practicable approach would be to concentrate first on the killer stuff itself, not kappa. I concentrated our efforts on pushing as far as possible our knowledge of this substance (which we now call paramecin) so as to get the Biochemist off to as good a start as possible. I think the decision was a wise one because our efforts have paid off to an unexpected degree.
You have certainly put your finger on the critical problems in your own work, and, though they are tough as you well know, I think it will turn out in the end that your plan of attack is a wise one.
With very best wishes for success,
Metadata Last Modified Date:
Linked Data:
RDF/XML     JSON     JSON-LD     N3/Turtle     N-Triples