Document 4N9KeXOzDZZyO0Z0NVXjJpDj

f July 16,: 1946 ~. S') A Dr. McKees Gat tell, ;: Department of Pharmacology* Cornell University Medical College, ,:,.; . ipOo York Avenue, . .. ' ...l , ~ Hev York City 21. ,, ..v' . :. ..j --'- Dear Dr. Cattell: Thanks very much for your letter of July 8. I am not re submitting the paper on DDT at this time, but rather am raising the question for yourconsideration. I can very veil realize the attitude of your Journal toward the publication of evidence on this or any other problem that is merely confirmatory In character. As I indicated in my letter to Dr. Wallace, the contribution made in this Laboratory on the subject of DDT was principally concerned with the criti cal examination of the toxicity and the more obvious aspects of the mode of action of DDT. At the time ve came into this pic ture ''l't"'was"belleved ""that a number of laboratories ought to be engaged in. this vork. The Geigy Company vas sent to us on the advice of technical people in the Department of Agriculture, and vhat ve really undertook to do vas to examine these matters independently. As it happened, and as a matter of fact, as might have been expected, our results agreed substantially with those of the other investigators vho were experienced people in this field of vork. We undertook some additional investigations, vhich were of a rather sketchy type. Practically all of these matters vere included in Dr. Deichmann's paper, and I am frank to say that certain points vere not very veil presented. Actually for reasons vhich are neither here nor there, the paper vent to Dr. Wallace without having received the critical examination that it should have had at my hands. On the basis of the criti cisms returned to Dr. Deichmann by the Editorial Board, most of the material of real consequence vas stripped out of the paper and the fragments so-to-speak, vhich represented something nev or different, remained/.Under these circumstances I am not very keen to publish the revised paper. I recognize that the work done on the physiological side vas not complete, or even veil rounded oUt, and in view of the physiological information availa ble from other sources and obtained by other techniques, I do hot consider it a very . meritorious contribution to the subject . I do think that there is ample justification for presenting the confirmatory data on the toxicity and general mode of action of this material. There are new questions arising about it every day, and. as a consequence the weight of evidence from a variety of sources is required to establish the nature of certain effects and the absence of cejrtain others. 0020135 Dr. McKean Cattell - (2) - July 16, 1946 If it could be agreed that this is a valid argument, I am quite prepared to review our evidence quite carefully to present it as briefly as possible, and yet as comprehensively as need be, and to strip out of it any of the experimental procedures that can be regarded as ambiguous or in any way dubious. In this manner the essential evidence on the subject as obtained by this Laboratory could be presented for what it is worth, in support of the point of view which is now prevailing. You may feel that your Journal Is not the place forsuch an article. If so, it will probably be a matter of convenience for you to say so, since under those circumstances I shall not put you to the trouble or perhaps the embarrassment of considering this paper for publication. With kindest x-egards, Sincerely yours. EAK ef Dictated but not read. Robert A . Kehoe, M. D. Kf 0020136