Document bBpY0Kgywj6j49Ko9YeOGQ41g

Dear Mr. Brinkley; ' Mellon Institute might be interested in undertaking an objective review of the area covered by the President's Science Advisory Committee's Panel on the Use of Pesticideso The Institute provides such services to in { dustry on a continuing basis ,;/ However, it is willing to perform this task only if it is able tc do so in a manner which will be effective and will j reflect credit upon itself and its sponsor ' ^ * * ' _ * ' It would be useless for us t consider a t t e s t i n g to help you- at the level of effort indicated in your letters of December 19# 1963 We also feel that it is unlikely that anything worthy of publication in association with the names of Mellon Institute or National Agricultural Chemicals Associa tion can be produced in four months with the limited scientific staff proposed A year's study would, in our opinion, be a minimum The degree of effort required to produce a report of substantial value would necessitate many expert opinions and collaboration ', - ' - In order to be effective, the reviewmustbe^comprehensive, factual, and well coordinated It would be of little use to prepare another attack on Silent Spring which would, in turn, probably be followed by another rebuttal The list of supporters of Silent Spring includes Loren Eisely, : Ho Jo linllr. and:l^ston Bats3' g ^ thiss oa: th: opposite id include F. J. * Stare, C. G. King, and I. L. Baldwin, according to T. K Ingalls, who criticizes both groups for unsuppox-ted allegations in an editorial entitled "No Grapes on the Vine'5 (AMA Archives of Environmental'Health Sec 1963) r Criticism of Silent Spring is to be found in cany articles, such as that by T Ho Jukes entitled "People and Pesticides" (American Scientist 51s355"6l# Sept 1963), which states "Progress in American agriculture must not become harsstrung by legislation resulting from inaccurate statements regarding the dangers of pesticides The right to publish confers the obligation to tell the story without distortion, omission, misquotation, or innuendo", also pointing l- V-/ i* ? j z^'i/k.,' fi-'tv'-.. '-"J- ' iffi-7:\' ' "~ - &rf: - VS ~ `. * Ife. Mr. Parke C. Brinkley " *:*C2-;v- s ^'T:fv V'* v7&-'--'*-,,",,%Ja',,ni>fuar? A;S - a * A * * - u *, - ' :'-y,,: .5 : " : "' * out the many benefits which h^ve arisen out of use of modernpesticides.1 Such statements, which may already have impugned the honesty of Rachel Carson, have apparently not succeeded in preventing her book-firon b e i ^ ' i i s M ^ ' l . ^ ^ ^ as a reference. The availability of a coaprehensive and accurate review 'V would go much "farther in preventing such reference ., ',, ir:. Our view of handling this assignment would require about two ' full-time scientists plus a collaborative, staff,^f .Binsati.consultants, assum ing they could be solicited, from the Medical, toxicological, entomological, ictbyological fields, as well as analytical and biochemical support. The r, ,, report must have distinctive scientific value to serve its purpose.. We n ;1 feel that any other approach to such a report would constitute only another ' rebuttal that would be considered biased and be unconvincing*. , ^7.' ' 2f you should wish to discuss the project along the lines sug ' -v gested here, may we suggest an early meeting either here or in Washington in *v,' ,,7: order that we m a y develop the necessary arrangements.. . 7, s ... Sincerely your, . ' .. ' .; ** ~ ^7 5 ? ->.5 H'JV GAWiKJ . 0. A.-Webb Birector of'Administration At 'lT' Three c.e. attached . -c.c. Mr. Fred. W. Hatch : 30 Sutton Place, Apt.- Is. ; New York 22, New York * t ^ f-- ; < K` . * t ,;"-'-' *---r"' '*V"; ISM"* ^ V " * T # ' ^if ,,-P* " Mr. S. H. McAllister ...... Shell Chemical Company ' ' 50 West 50th Street New York 20,* New York V;! ... ... V-W-<. ,, pi?.: r;feVf> . ' ^ - * Zip. ? * .i r t Capias to t -.r*- FP*. .v0 ;Cross ' "y *' T p . d s i f r s v i l ls ^ to. 1. W. a?. \ ^ "I"* ;-f^ u i, y\ * "" v * ; V V\ * & v *"- -n, , / > ir *'s_ vz\`\* ,m m. -K&