Document vJ3Z92291dBE1jLo50Vmr8y9

March 14, 1963 Katharine R. Boucot, M.D. Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania 3300 Henry Avenue Philadelphia 29, Pennsylvania Dear Katharine: Frank Princi brought your letter of March 11th to me for my information and comment and X thought it best to reply, since I was concerned specifically with two matters of some importance. The first relates to the papers of Ronald Lane and G.W.H. Schepers, and to a lesser extent that of Allan Fleming. Lane told me that he wished to revise his paper and the charts in particular for the purposes of its publication. Ke can be expected to do so promptly and to return his revised paper to me or to you, as you prefer. Schepers* paper was in such form that I had to prepaz*e the manuscript for publication. (It came to me as he dictated it in a hurry before taking a trip, and it was a horrible mess.) I did what had to be done, with as little violence as possible to ais purposes and ideas, but I eliminated one entire portion that had to do with variations in the distribution of various mineral constituents of the tissues of his experimental animals, since it was a huge collection of data in tables that could not be interpreted in relation to toxic effects or other physiological or toxicological considerations. I believe it would be wise if you were to write to him about his paper, obtain his version of the text, and then do with it as you think best. I believe you will agree that the less I have to do with this, the better it will be. However, I will do anything which you wish me to do. Fleming's paper was subjected to some editing which, I believe, was entirely acceptable to him. However, he, also, may wish to revise my editorial revisions,and he should have that opportunity, I believe. If you agree you can write to him, or if you prefer, I will do so. The second point relates to three of my contributions, which are represented in the papers sent to you by brief introductory remarks. I take it that these in their present form do not fulfill the role which X led you to expect. This I am prepared to remedy and will set about it once doing so with respect to the material contained in the Harben Lectures which can be abstracted satisfactorily without too much effort. This I agree will improve the series of papers for the purpose of the reader who wishes to have all or most of the information at hand in this one publication. Katharine R. Boucot, M.D. 2 March 14, 1933 (Incidentally, I wrote my three "filler" pieces at the last minute, the night before the final deadline for supplying the printer, so that we could give out the finished proceedings as we had promised. I had such an editorial Job on my hands that I spent all of my spare time, evenings and Sundays included, for three weeks, with no opportunity even to ponder over my own contributions, except for my last paper which was done with care. This is not a complaint but an explanation of the brevity of two of them.) As to the third of my offerings (page XVI), which refers to articles published in the Archives and so c,ited, I wonder if there is any point in its amplification. Please let me haye your advice on this promptly. I do not wish to let you down, or disappoint you in any way, but you will appreciate the fact that it is extremely difficult to go beyond what I have said without producing quite a manuscript, in which I discuss the objective, the method of approach and the results in much greater detail. I'll do as you wish. As to the sequence of the articles, we have no objection to your handling these as you wish. However, it would be my suggestion that if you wish to change the sequence of the papers that relate to lead in the air and to the general problem of air pollution, you might move Larsen's paper (V in the series) and fit it in between Mr. Cholak's last paper and Dr. Sterling's. This will put everything that relates to air quality in one sequence, including Sterling's, which is concerned more with this than with any other consideration. This would put my discussion last, where, I believe, it should be. I'm glad you approve of the Symposium, on the whole, and I'll try to fit my contributions into the pattern. I would have done this without your prompting but for the pressure of other things which could not be set aside. Sincerely yours, RAK:ss Robert A. Kehoe, K, D. K E 0010455