Forkner worked with Sabin at the Rockefeller Institute from 1927 to 1929, and corresponded with her regularly long afterwards.
Here he thanks her for her judicious editing of a manuscript, and asks that she continue to give him as much criticism and
feedback as possible.
Item is handwritten.
Number of Image Pages:
8 (444,849 Bytes)
1930-04-06 (April 6, 1930)
Sabin, Florence R.
Original Repository: American Philosophical Society. Library. Florence R. Sabin Papers
Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.
The National Library of Medicine's Profiles in Science
program has made every effort to secure proper permissions
for posting items on the web site. In this instance, however,
it has either not been possible to identify or contact the
current copyright owner.
If you have information regarding the copyright owner,
please contact us at
At the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, 1925-1938
Forkner, Claude, #5
April 6, 1930
Dear Dr. Sabin --
Your letters arrived yesterday and I enjoyed them very much.
I really can't tell you how sincerely grateful I am to you for having made the changes you did in my paper. It makes
the difference between a petty quarrelsome paper and one which is above that and is really constructive. I should have known
better and as a matter of fact I did know that my criticisms of Bloom and others were not right, but somehow I felt a
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
like scrapping with Bloom, not because he had attacked me, but because he had so rigorously criticized your papers. You may
remember how angry I was about a year and a half ago when I read what he said about your and Doans [sic] papers. Then in
my paper I turned about and foolishly copied his antics. Fortunately I had a better adviser than he. Thank you very much!
Also I have modified the note concerning Naegeli and think that I now have it straight. Naegeli was responsible for the name
"monocyte," but Schilling was responsible for really separating them into a third strain of cells. Isn't this
Dr. Sabin, please never feel
[END PAGE TWO]
[END PAGE THREE]
uneasy about criticism, or suggestions you make on any of my papers. I thrive on it and the more you criticize the better
I like it. I'm really very much in earnest about this and want the severest kind of criticism.
I think the decision about not putting the giant cell paper (blood studies) in the series a good one. It seems to me that
it would be well to have it seperate [sic].
Also I am delighted to have your name on the other giant cell paper. Concerning it I hope that my criticisms and objections
were not too severe. I did feel rather strongly about some of the points.
[END PAGE THREE]
[BEGIN PAGE FOUR]
Others of course were minor details that do not matter much. Please be frank with me concerning your opinions on my criticisms.
You will have your time busily occupied next year with the new men all of whom sound very promising. I wish I could be there
to lend a hand. Dr. Hu will be disappointed for he did want to be with you very badly, however it may be better as you have
decided. I can tell you more about his situation when I see you. I think he is a good man, but he needs just such stimulation
as you could give him. He telegraphed Cash asking for a letter of recommendation to you and indicating that he wanted to
work with you. He did not indicate that he had been invited by you. Apparently
[END PAGE FOUR]
[BEGIN PAGE FIVE]
the brevity of the telegram gave Cash that impression. I am sorry for that because it implied that you were trying to steal
one of Cash's men without consulting him first. That of course will be adjusted when the letters all arrive.
I did not know about Kubie's ideas concerning plasma cells. I shall talk with him about it in the next few days as he
is here working in the same hospital. They are all well.
My wife's mother and father are here for a week now. When
[END PAGE FIVE]
[BEGIN PAGE SIX]
they leave we shall have the opportunity of seeing the Kubies more intimately. By the way Mrs. DuBuis is considerably improved
and seems to be on the road toward recovery.
I visited Calmett in Paris and had long talks with several men there. They have given B.C.G. to over 200,000 cases in France
alone and are very enthusiastic. One of the men who has been with Besredka there for 9 or 10 years gave me his opinion which
seemed to be straightforward and unbiased. He is also enthusiastic, but thinks that the early claims of Calmett were possibly
a little premature and
[END PAGE SIX]
[BEGIN PAGE SEVEN]
not based on a long enough period of observation. It is all very interesting.
The papers from Paris arrived O.K. and I have ammended [sic] them as previously stated.
Delightful to hear that Dr. Reans[?] approved of the papers. If one of them is too long I think it better to send both of
them to either the Archives of Pathology or the Amer. Jour. of Path. The former seems to me to have a considerably wider
circulation and is better known and therefore is probably a better place for them. I am sorry to bother you with this detail.
A letter came from Dr Cole yesterday telling me that it was his advice that I make
[END PAGE SEVEN]
[BEGIN PAGE EIGHT]
no decision about 1931-1932 until I return. It was very good news for I feared that my going to Boston for one year had not
met with his approval. He indicated that I might have the opportunity of coming there and wants to talk with me on my return.
If you see Dr. De Kock give him my best. We enjoyed knowing him very much.
Mrs. Forkner joins me in greetings to you.
I shall arrive in N.Y. on July 6th or 7th on the Olympic. Will you be there then?