Of 'small men', big science and bigger business: The second world war and biomedical research in the United States

Minerva

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 115-146

  Rasmussen, Nicolas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23944495204     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1015760920428     Document Type: Article

References (240)

1. Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986);
2. Daniel Kevles, The Physicists (New York: Knopf, 1978);
3. A. Hunter Dupree, 'The Great Instauration of 1940: The Organization of Scientific Research for War', in Gerald Holton (ed.), The Twentieth Century Sciences: Studies in the Biography of Ideas (New York: Norton, 1972), 443-467;
4. Derek de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science . . . and Beyond (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986);
5. Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, XVIII (1987), 149-229;
6. Michael A. Dennis, 'Our First Line of Defense: Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State', Isis, LXXX (1994), 427-455.
7. For recent scholarship on the Second World War and its role in making science bigger, see Peter Galison and Bruce Hevley (eds.), Big Science: The Growth of Large Scale Research (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992);
8. Paul Forman and Jose Sanchez-Ron (eds.), National Military Establishments and the Advancement of Science and Technology (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996);
9. and Roy MacLeod (ed.), Science and the Pacific War: Science and Survival in the Pacific (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000).
10. On the shifting meanings of 'big science', see James Capshew and Karen Rader, 'Big Science: Price to the Present', Osiris, VII (1992), 3-25.
11. Angela Creager, 'Biotechnology and Blood: Edwin Cohn's Plasma Fractionation Project, 1940-1953', in Arnold Thackray (ed.), Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 39-62 (quotations on 41, 44);
12. Peter Neushul, 'Science, Government, and the Mass Production of Penicillin', Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, XLVIII (1993), 371-395, quotation on 395;
13. A. Baird Hastings, Crossing Boundaries: Biological, Disciplinary, Human (Grand Rapids: Four Corners Press, 1989), 98.
14. For the role of the Rockefeller Foundation in molecular biology, see Robert E. Kohler Jr, 'The Management of Science: The Experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation Program in Molecular Biology', Minerva, XIV (1976), 279-306;
15. Pnina G. Abir-Am, 'The Assessment of Interdisciplinary Research in the 1930s: The Rockefeller Foundation and Physico-Chemical Morphology', Minerva, 25 (1), (1988), 153-176;
16. Lily Kay, 'Rethinking Institutions: Philanthropy as an Historiographic Problem of Knowledge and Power', Minerva, 35 (3), (1997), 283-293.
17. Nicolas Rasmussen, 'Biotechnology before the Biotechnology Revolution: Life Scientists, Chemists and Product Development in 1930s-1940s America', in Carsten Reinhardt (ed.), Chemical Sciences in the 20th Century: Bridging Boundaries (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2001), 201-227.
18. On the concept of habitus in academia (and elsewhere) see Pierre Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, trans. P. Collier (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1988).
19. On its application to the way of life in particular biological fields see Nicolas Rasmussen, Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology in America, 1940-1960 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997)
20. and, 'Instruments, Scientists, Industrialists, and the Specificity of "Influence": The Case of RCA and Biological Electron Microscopy', in Ilana Loewy and Jean-Paul Gaudillere (eds.), The Invisible Industrialist (London: Macmillan, 1998), 173-208.
21. Figures from James Phinney Baxter 3rd, Scientists Against Time (New York: Little-Brown, 1946), 300.
22. On the rubber project, see Peter Neushul, 'Science, Technology, and the Arsenal of Democracy: Production Research and Development during World War II' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1993).
23. On biological warfare research, see Barton Bernstein, 'America's Biological Warfare program in the Second World War', Journal of Strategic Studies, XI (1988), 292-313;
24. Gerald Fitzgerald, Engineering Biological Weapons: James Reyniers and the Technology of Isolation, paper presented to the Joint Atlantic Seminar in the History of Biology, Princeton University, 1 April 2000.
25. On life science in the Manhattan Project, see Barton Hacker, The Dragon's Tail: Radiation Protection in the Manhattan Project, 1942-1946 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). Bernstein's contention that biological warfare work was unimportant because the money spent was small relative to the cost of the atomic bomb - an argument applicable a fortiori to the less richly funded CMR - ignores the different levels of resources required by different fields, and the low hardware component in the life sciences.
26. Bush foreword of January 1946 in Baxter, op. cit. note 5, xvi.
27. For examples, see John Morton Blum, V Was for Victory: Politics and American Culture During World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976), 140-146;
28. Carroll Pursell, 'Science Agencies in World War II: The OSRD and its Challengers', in Nathan Reingold (ed.), The Sciences in American Context: New Perspectives (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1979), 359-378;
29. Larry Owens, 'The Counterproductive Management of Science in the Second World War: Vannevar Bush and the Office of Scientific Research and Development', Business History Review, LXVIII (1994), 515-576;
30. Roy MacLeod, ' "Combat Scientists": The Office of Scientific Research and Development and Field Service in the Pacific', War and Society, 11 (2), (1993), 117-134.
31. On the administrative history of the OSRD, see Irvin Stewart, Organizing Scientific Research for War (Boston: Little-Brown, 1948).
32. On the NAS and NRC, see A. Hunter Dupree, 'The National Academy of Sciences and the American Definition of Science', in Alexandra Oleson and John Voss (eds.), Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860-1920 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), 342-363;
33. Glenn Bugos, 'Managing Cooperative Research and Borderland Science in the National Research Council, 1922-1942', Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, XX (1989), 1-32;
34. Daniel Kevles, 'George Ellery Hale, the First World War, and the Advancement of Science in America', Isis, LIX (1968), 427-437.
35. On Bush's involvement with patents as a science policy official, see Lewis Auerbach, 'Scientists in the New Deal: A Pre-War Episode in the Relations Between Science and Government in the United States', Minerva, 3 (4), (1965), 457-482;
36. Joel Genuth, 'Groping Towards a Science Policy in the United States in the 1930s', Minerva, 25 (3), (1987), 238-268;
37. Robert Kargon and Elizabeth Hodes, 'Karl Compton, Isaiah Bowman, and the Politics of Science in the Great Depression', Isis, LXXVI (1985), 301-318;
38. Carroll Pursell, 'The Anatomy of a Failure: The Science Advisory Board, 1933-35', Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CIX (1965), 342-351.
39. Also see Robert Kohler, Partners in Science: Foundations and Natural Scientists, 1900-1945 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991);
40. and Nathan Reingold, 'National Science Policy in a Private Foundation: The Carnegie Institution of Washington', in Oleson and Voss, op. cit. supra, 313-341.
41. On Richards, see Carl Schmidt, Alfred Newton Richards', Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, XLII (1971), 271-318.
42. Jonathan Liebenau, Medical Science and Medical Industry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987);
43. John P. Swann, Academic Scientists and the Pharmaceutical Industry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988);
44. Alison Li, 'J.B. Collip, A.M. Hanson and the Isolation of the Parathyroid Hormone, or Endocrines and Enterprise', Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, XLVII (1992), 405-438;
45. Michael Bliss, The Discovery of Insulin (Chicago: University Chicago Press, 1982);
46. Nelly Oudshoorn, Beyond the Natural Body (London: Routledge, 1994);
47. Rima Apple, 'Patenting University Research: Harry Steenbock and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation', Isis, LXXX (1989), 375-394.
48. On the general role of patent abrogation in the First World War as a stimulant to the chemical and related industries in the US, see Kathryn Steen, 'Patents, Patriotism, and "Skilled in the Art": USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 1923-1926', Isis, XCII (2001), 91-122.
49. For a contemporary view, see Morris Fishbein, 'Medical Patents', Journal of the American Medical Association, CIX (1937), 1539-1543. Between twelve and twenty-four American universities were gainfully managing biomedical intellectual property in the late 1930s. However, this small number understates the importance of such factors as the status of contributing scientists and universities, as well as the existence of other forms of collaboration not dependent upon exchanges of intellectual property.
50. See Rasmussen, op. cit. note 4.
51. On Richards's relations with Merck, see Swann, op. cit. note 9, 65-86.
52. On the nature of OSRD contracts, see Stewart, op. cit. note 8, chaps. 13, 15 and Appendix 2;
53. also Owens, op. cit. note 7.
54. Also see Dupree, op. cit. note 1, and evidence below.
55. Neushul, op. cit. note 2.
56. Florey and Heatley travelled to Peoria on 14 July 1941, and Florey met with Richards on 7 August. On Heatley at Peoria, see Kenneth Raper, 'Research in the Development of Penicillin', in E.C. Andrus et al. (eds.), Advances in Military Medicine (Boston: Little-Brown, 1948), 723-745.
57. For one account of the various contributions to penicillin research of Florey, Heatley, USDA researchers, drug companies, and academic research contractors, see John Sheehan, The Enchanted Ring: The Untold Story of Penicillin (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982).
58. A.N. Richards's foreword, in Andrus, op. cit. note 11, xli-liv;
59. Raper, op. cit. note 11;
60. Neushul, op. cit. note 2.
61. On penicillin patents by USDA personnel, see Peter Neushul, 'Fighting Research: Army Participation in the Clinical Testing and Mass Production of Penicillin during the Second World War', in Roger Cooter, Mark Harrison, and Steve Sturdy (eds.), War, Medicine and Modernity (Stroud: Sutton, 1998), 203-225.
62. On George Merck's role and Lederle's demurral, see Hastings, op. cit. note 2, 102.
63. Raper, op. cit. note 11;
64. Chester Keefer, 'Penicillin: A Wartime Achievement', in Andrus, op. cit. note 11, 717-724;
65. Baxter, op. cit. note 5, chap. 22;
66. Neushul, op. cit. note 2;
67. on the WPB and OPRD, see Pursell, op. cit. note 7.
68. For manufacturers' reactions to Keefer's early 1943 report, see John Swann, 'The Search for Synthetic Penicillin during World War II', British Journal for the History of Science, XVI (1983), 154-190.
69. For trials that caught the Army's interest, see Neushul, op. cit. note 12.
70. On wartime clinical testing, see David P. Adams Jr, 'Wartime Bureaucracy and Penicillin Allocation: The Committee on Chemotherapeutic and Other Agents, 1942-44', Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, XLIV (1989), 196-217,
71. and Harry Marks, The Progress of Experiment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), chap. 4.
72. For Elder, see Neushul, op. cit. note 2, 386.
73. The contracts were arranged through the Office of Production Research and Development (OPRD), the WPB's research arm. Like the CMR's clinical results and the USDA lab's mycological findings, processes and strains obtained through OPRD-funded penicillin research were patented by the government, and all findings were freely distributed to manufacturers. Endowed with a budget tiny compared to OSRD's - $4.5 million in 1944, the year of these culture enhancement contracts - the OPRD never seriously rivalled Bush's agency in its influence upon academia, but it did made an difference to the war effort; see Pursell, op. cit. note 7.
74. For further discussion of WPB's role in industrial research, see Neushul, op. cit. note 5.
75. Figures on 1943 and 1944 are from Neushul, op. cit. note 2, 387;
76. increase rate and overall production costs are in Swann, op. cit. note 13, 182, 167.
77. Quote from Neushul, op. cit. note 12, 218.
78. Ibid.
79. Swann, op. cit. note 13;
80. Stewart, op. cit. note 8, 225-226.
81. California Institute of Technology Archives, George Beadle Papers (hereafter, Beadle Papers), box 7, folder 1, Vannevar Bush, 'Interim First Determinations of the Director of OSRD under the Penicillin Synthesis Contracts', 15 April 1946.
82. Richards's foreword in op. cit. note 12, liii;
83. Hastings, op. cit. note 2, 106.
84. Oudshoorn, op. cit. note 9, 88 (quoted is Robert Frank, 1929); also, other works cited in note 9.
85. Edward C. Kendall, Cortisone: Memoirs of a Hormone Hunter (Scribners: New York, 1971);
86. also see Nicolas Rasmussen, 'Steroids in Arms: Science, Government, Industry, and the Hormones of the Adrenal Cortex in the United States, 1930-1950', Medical History, in press.
87. Kendall, op. cit. note 20;
88. Rasmussen, op. cit. note 20.
89. US National Archives, Record Group 227, Entry 165 (hereafter, USNA 227/165), box 9, folder 'Adrenal Cortex', Clark memo, 'Brief of the Conference on Cortical Substance E', 7 October 1941.
90. Also see information sheets for OEM-CMR contracts 32, 42, 55, 70, 95, 106, 168, Richards Papers, carton 12, folder 51.
91. Harvard chemist Louis Fieser, one of the rivals brought in under OSRD contract, soon became Kendall's ally by accepting a consultancy with Merck and exchanging laboratory staff with both Kendall and Merck. Kendall Papers, carton 8, folder 'Merck and Company Correspondence 1941-1942', Major to Kendall, 3 December 1941;
92. Kendall to Major, 24 December 1942;
93. Major to Kendall, 7 March 1942.
94. On Fieser and the steroid chemistry community, see Leo Slater, 'Industry and Academy: The Synthesis of Steroids', Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, XXX (2000), 443-480.
95. On Parke-Davis's and Schering's independent pursuit of cortical steroid synthesis during the war, see Kendall Papers, box 8, folder 'Research Corporation', Poillon to Richards, 13 November 1941.
96. On intellectual property restrictions applying to OSRD/CMR contractors, see USNA 227/165, box 9, folder 'Adrenal Cortex', Clark to Richards, 9 February 1942.
97. On academic chemists' attitudes toward the 'cooperative' arrangements, see USNA 227/165, box 9, folder Adrenal Cortex', T.F. Gallagher to Clark, 11 March 1942.
98. USNA 227/165, box 9, folder 'Adrenal Cortex', C.N.H. Long [and Richards?] memo, 'Special Appraisal of Adrenal Projects in CAM', undated.
99. On shock, see e.g., USNA 227/29, box 36, W.W. Swingle, contract OEM-CMR 5, 'Final Technical Progress Report', March 1943.
100. For declassification, see Richards Papers, carton 12, folder 42, Louis Flexner memo, 'Reclassification of Aviation Medicine Reports', 28 October 1943.
101. USNA 227/165, box 9, folder Adrenal Cortex', Richards to Clark, 1 May 1943.
102. USNA 227/165, box 9, folder Adrenal Cortex', Richards to Clark, 18 March 1944;
103. USNA 227/165, box 46, folder 'Kendall, E.C, Hans Clarke to Charles Keefer (with attached E.C. Kendall memo), 4 April 1945. Gallagher's OSRD contract was continued through March 1945, Wallis's was continued through December 1944, but Fieser's and Bergmann's were continued only through June 1944. See Richards Papers, carton 12, folder 51, record sheets on contracts OEM-CMR-42, OEM-CMR-32, OEM-CMR-168, and OEM-CMR-106 respectively.
104. Kendall Papers, box 8, folder 'Research Corporation', Kendall to Poillon, 15 January 1944.
105. Kendall, op. cit. note 20, chap. 11;
106. Rasmussen, op. cit. note 20.
107. Rasmussen, op. cit. note 20;
108. Kendall, op. cit. note 20, chaps. 11-13;
109. G. Hetenyi Jr., and J. Karsh, 'Cortisone Therapy: A Challenge to Academic Medicine in 1949-1952', Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, XL (1997), 426-439;
110. H. Marks, 'Cortisone, 1949: A Year in the Political Life of a Drug', Bulletin of History of Medicine, LXVI (1992), 419-439,
111. David Cantor, 'Cortisone and the Politics of Drama, 1949-1955', in J.V. Pickstone (ed.), Medical Innovations in Historical Perspective (New York: St Martin's Press, 1992), 165-184.
112. Edwin Cohn, 'The History of Plasma Fractionation', in Andrus, op. cit. note 11, 364-443;
113. Angela Creager, 'Producing Molecular Therapeutics from Human Blood: Edwin Cohn's Wartime Enterprise', in Soraya de Chadarevian and Harmke Kamminga (eds.), Molecularizing Biology and Medicine (Amsterdam: Harwood, 1998), 107-138;
114. also see Creager, op. cit. note 2.
115. On the Harvard-Lilly collaboration, see Swann, op. cit. note 9, 150-169.
116. For the next year, Cohn kept his pilot plant at Harvard running around the clock - much as Kendall had been doing since 1934 - producing substantial quantities of albumin for field use until industrial plants became fully operational in mid-1943. Cohn, op. cit. note 28.
117. Ibid.;
118. Charles Janeway and John L. Oncley, 'Blood Substitutes', in Andrus, op. cit. note 11, 444-461.
119. On Cohn's grants, see Craeger, op. cit. note 2.
120. Lily Kay, 'Selling Pure Science in Wartime: The Biochemical Genetics of G.W. Beadle', Journal of the History of Biology, XXII (1989), 73-101 (quotation on 99-100).
121. Also see Robert Kohler, 'Systems of Production: Drosophila, Neurospora, and Biochemical Genetics', Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, XXII (1991), 87-130.
122. On Weaver's role in fostering 'molecular biology', see Kohler, op. cit. note 3;
123. Abir-Am, op. cit. note 3;
124. Kay op. cit. note 3;
125. also Kohler, op. cit. note 8.
126. On Weaver's coining of 'molecular biology' and its mutations in meaning, see Warren Weaver, 'Molecular Biology: Origins of the Term', Science, CLXX (1970), 581-582;
127. Guther Stent, 'That Was the Molecular Biology that Was', Science, CLX (1968), 390-395;
128. and Nicolas Rasmussen, 'The Midcentury Biophysics Bubble: Hiroshima and the Biological Revolution in America, Revisited', History of Science, XXXV (1997), 245-293.
129. Beadle Papers, box 6, folder 5, Beadle to Howard Poillon, 28 November 1941, and Poillon to Beadle, 2 December 1941.
130. Beadle Papers, box 2, folder 54, Beadle to Weaver, 28 November 1941.
131. Beadle Papers, box 34, folder 1, Beadle to Robert Waterman, 18 December 1941.
132. On the Merck proposal and Rockefeller policy toward patents, see Kay, op. cit. note 32.
133. Beadle Papers, box 18, folder 1, Beadle to C.V. Taylor, 11 July 1942, and Taylor to Beadle, 13 July 1942.
134. Beadle Papers, box 6, folder 16, Beadle to A.N. Richards, 22 October 1942, and Richards to Beadle, 31 October 1942.
135. Beadle Papers, box 32, folder 21: Beadle, undated memo [1942], 'A Proposal to the Nutrition Foundation';
136. Wilbur to Ole Sathe, 1 May 1942;
137. Wilbur to Beadle, 25 May 1942;
138. Beadle to C.G. King, 2 June 1942;
139. King to Beadle, 6 February 1943.
140. Beadle Papers, box 34, folder 1, Poillon to Beadle, 29 March 1943;
141. Waterman to Ray Wilbur, 4 May 1943;
142. Beadle to Waterman, 28 June 1943.
143. Beadle Papers, box 34, folder 4, Beadle to A.D. Welch, 1 November 1943;
144. Beadle to Welch, 14 November 1943;
145. Welch to Beadle, 23 December 1943;
146. Beadle, undated proposal [January 1944?], 'A Proposed Study of the Production of Antibiotic Substances by Neurospora';
147. Beadle to Welch, 28 January 1944;
148. Beadle to Welch, 4 February 1944;
149. Welch to Beadle, 9 February 1944;
150. Beadle to Welch, 15 February 1944.
151. On streptomycin see Milton Wainwright, 'Streptomycin: Discovery and Resultant Controversy', History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, XIII (1991), 97-124.
152. Beadle Papers, box 34, folder 4, Beadle to C.G. Welch, 28 February 1944.
153. Beadle Papers, box 33, folder 7, Beadle to A.B. Hatch, 14 February 1944.
154. Beadle Papers, box 32, folder 21, Ole Sathe to Wilbur, 6 April 1944;
155. Beadle to C.G. King, 15 April 1944.
156. Beadle Papers, box 33, folder 7, Coghill to Beadle, 22 February 1944;
157. Beadle to Coghill, 29 February 1944;
158. Hatch to Beadle, 13 May 1944.
159. Beadle Papers, box 33, folder 3, L.A. Monroe to Beadle, 8 August 1944 (also many letters to Beadle from manufacturers requesting strains in September 1944).
160. On Demerec see Neushul, op. cit. note 12.
161. Beadle Papers, box 33, folder 6, Monroe to Beadle telegram, 29 December 1944.
162. Beadle Papers, box 33, folder 9, Monroe to Beadle, 5 February 1945;
163. Hans Clarke to Beadle, 17 February 1945;
164. Tatum to Clarke, 17 February 1945;
165. Beadle to Richards, 14 March 1945;
166. Keefer to Beadle, 19 April 1945;
167. Richards to Beadle, 24 May 1945.
168. The primary interest in basic, as opposed to applied, research that Kay attributes to Beadle in the war years, as well as (to some extent) his use of the basic/applied distinction itself, may be largely an artifact of the way in which he presented his work to his Rockefeller patrons, whose files serve as a key archival source for Kay. On the influential role of the life science division at Caltech, see Lily Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
169. On Schmitt's wartime work see F.O. Schmitt, The Never-Ceasing Search (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1990), chaps. 7-9;
170. C.E. Hall, 'Recollections From the Early Years: Canada - USA', Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, Supplemental, XVI (1985), 275-296,
171. and N. Rasmussen, 'Making a Machine Instrumental: RCA and the Wartime Beginnings of Biological Electron Microscopy', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, XXVII (1996), 311-349.
172. Rasmussen, op. cit. note 41.
173. Rockefeller Archive Center (Tarrytown, NY), Rockefeller Foundation Natural Sciences files, record group 1.1 (hereafter, RF), series 224, box 4, folder 36, Schmitt to Hanson, 14 January 1942;
174. Hanson to Weaver, 1 July 1942;
175. Weaver to Hanson, 3 July 1942;
176. Schmitt to Hanson, 28 July 1942;
177. Schmitt, 'Progress Report', 28 July 1942;
178. Hanson diary entries on interviews with Schmitt at Woods Hole, 25-31 August 1942, and 17 August-1 September 1943.
179. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives, collection MC 154, F.O. Schmitt Papers (hereafter, Schmitt Papers), carton 2, folder 28, Schmitt memos 'Idea - Plasticising Collagen', 24 March 1942, and 'Idea - Artificial Nerve', 24 March 1942.
180. On patent arrangements see USNA 227/29, box 95, folder OEM-CMR-286, F.O. Schmitt, 'Interim Progress Report', 25 October 1943.
181. Schmitt, 'Interim Progress Report', 25 October 1943, op. cit. note 46.
182. Also see University of Pennsylvania Archives, A.N. Richards Papers (hereafter, Richards Papers), carton 12, folder 36, CMR meeting minutes of 17 December 1942.
183. Also Richards Papers, carton 12, folder 42, CMR meeting minutes of 23 September 1943.
184. See USNA 227/29, folder OEMcmr-286, F.O. Schmitt, 'Final Report, Contract OEM-CMR-286', 7 January 1942.
185. Also see E.L. Howes, 'Experimental Wound Healing', in Andrus, op. cit. note 11, 111-122.
186. On Schmitt's ongoing support from the Rockefeller Foundation and agencies such as the Office of Naval Research, see Rasmussen, Picture Control, op. cit. note 4, chap. 4.
187. On the relationship with USMC, see e.g., Schmitt Papers, carton 36, folder 13, Schmitt, handwritten notes on conversation with H.S. Benson, 30 December 1943;
188. Schmitt, handwritten notes on conversation with Robert C. Putnam, 1 September 1944;
189. R.M. Bigelow to Schmitt, 10 June 1948; Schmitt to Highberger, 3 April 1950;
190. Schmitt, handwritten notes on lunch with Clifford Roberts, 11 July 1952.
191. Also see Schmitt-Lilly correspondence in Schmitt Papers, carton 2, folder 4.
192. For Army contract, see Schmitt Papers, carton 36, folder 13, Quartermaster Corps Contract QMC-51, 'Chemical and Structural Properties of Skin Proteins', undated.
193. Schmitt Papers, carton 36, folder 13, Highberger to B. Pollard, 19 February 1951;
194. Clifford Roberts to Walter Bauer, 28 May 1953;
195. Ernest Allen to Dean A. Allen, 20 July 1953;
196. Richard Hobbs to Bauer, 17 November 1953;
197. Allen to Schmitt, 5 February 1954.
198. Lily Kay, 'W.M. Stanley's Crystallization of the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, 1930-1940', Isis, LXXVII (1986), 450-472.
199. C.E. Duffy and Wendell Stanley, 'Studies on the Biochemical, Biophysical, and Immunogenetic Properties of Japanese B Type Encephalitis Virus and Vaccines', Journal of Experimental Medicine, LXXXII (1945), 385-410.
200. On Stanley's wartime work using centrifuges to purify and study viruses, see Angela Creager, TMV: The Life of A Virus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), chap. 4.
201. For an overview of the influenza project see the relevant section of Alphonse Dochez, Colin Macleod, James McCormack, 'Infectious Disease', in Andrus, op. cit. note 11,5-45;
202. for a bibliography of publications resulting from the wartime influenza work of Stanley and his associates, see Andrus, op. cit. note 11, 758-759.
203. For Stanley's wartime relations with Lederle see, e.g., University of California Archives (Berkeley, CA), collection 78/18c, Wendell Stanley Papers (hereafter, Stanley Papers), carton 7, folder 'Cox, Herald', Herald Cox to Stanley, 26 June 1944;
204. Cox to Stanley, 18 July 1944;
205. Cox to Stanley, 7 February 1945;
206. Cox to Stanley, 19 April 1945;
207. Cox to Stanley, 11 June 1946.
208. For Stanley's involvement with preparing the patent to his process, see Stanley Papers, carton 18, folder 'US Office of Scientific Research and Development 1941-1945', L.D. Dibble to Stanley, 24 February 1944;
209. Dibble to Stanley, 17 April 1944;
210. Dibble to Stanley, 5 September 1944.
211. Nicolas Rasmussen, op. cit. note 32;
212. Angela Creager, 'Wendell Stanley's Dream of a Free-Standing Biochemistry Department at the University of California, Berkeley', Journal of the History of Biology, XXIX (1996), 331-360.
213. Blum, op. cit. note 7, chaps. 3-4;
214. David Kennedy, Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War (New York: Oxford, 1999), chap. 18.
215. Stewart, op. cit. note 8, chap 15;
216. Neushul, Fighting Research, op. cit. note 12, 207.
217. Creager, op. cit. note 2;
218. Neushul, op. cit. note 2.
219. Kay, op. cit. note 3, 284,
220. and idem., 'Problematizing Basic Research in Molecular Biology', in Thackray, op. cit. note 2, 20-38.
221. Kohler, op. cit. note 3,
222. and also Kohler, op. cit. note 8.
223. Blum, op. cit. note 7, chap. 4;
224. Owens, op. cit. note 7;
225. Daniel Kevles, 'The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy; A Political Interpretation of Science the Endless Frontier', Isis, LXVIII (1977), 5-26;
226. Nathan Reingold, 'Vannevar Bush's New Deal for Research: Or, The Triumph of the Old Order', Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, XVII (1987) 299-344;
227. Reingold, 'Choosing the Future: The U.S. Research Community, 1944-1946', Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, XXV (1995), 301-328;
228. Daniel Kleinman, 'Layers of Interests, Layers of Influence: Business and the Genesis of the National Science Foundation', Science, Technology, and Human Values, XIX (1994), 259-282.
229. Swann, op. cit. note 9;
230. Creager, op. cit. note 2.
231. On the ONR see Harry Sapolosky, Science and the Navy: The History of the Office of Naval Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).
232. On the growth of NIH see Stephen Strickland, Politics, Science, and Dread Disease: A Short History of United States Medical Research Policy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972)
233. and The Story of the NIH Grants Programs (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1988).
234. On the NSF see note 55,
235. and Toby Appel, Shaping Biology: The National Science Foundation and American Biological Research, 1945-1975 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).
236. Martin Kenney, Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex (New Haven: Yale, 1986),
237. and also 'Biotechnology and the Creation of a New Economic Space', in Thackray, op. cit. note 2, 131-143;
238. Edward Yoxen, The Gene Business (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983);
239. Sheldon Krimsky, Biotechnics and Society: The Rise of Industrial Genetics (New York: Praeger, 1991);
240. James R. Brown, 'Privatizing the University', Science, CCXC (2000), 1701-1702.