Document e5mnbz4QMaQzMVx6xrqNbkzKM
July 16, 1946
' C r-* * `
d /O
D r . McKeen C a t t e l l > ,
V . '`
Department of Pharmacology# ;
.; .
Cornell University Medical College ; . ;
IpOo York Avenue,
.. . ',
r:
Kev York City 21. ,, . v
;
.
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 your consideration. :
.
I can very veil realise 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 cf action of DDT. At the time ve came into this pic
ture "I'trw&s'believed^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 vere experienced pebple in
this field of vork. We undertook some additional investigations,
which vere 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
D r . Wallace vithout 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 Soard, 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 vork
done on the physiological side vas not complete, or even veil
rounded oht, and in view of the physiological information availa
ble from other sources and obtained by other techniques, I do
hot consider it a very -i&eritorious 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 certain others.
;,
0020135
Dr. McKeen Gattell ~ (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 po3jr.it 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 regards,
..
Sincerely yours,
EAK ef Dictated but not read.
Robert A. Kehoe, M. D.
K f 0020136