January 5, 1933

Prof. Arthur B. Lamb,

Harvard University,

Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Professor Lamb:

I have received you letter with Dr. Cohn’s rebuttal, and desire to make the comments given below. It may be well, however, for me first to again present my beliefs regarding the paper and my recommendations as to its disposal.

I recommend that the paper be not accepted for the Journal of the American Chemical Society in its present form. It is needlessly long, involved in its construction, and, in consequence, very difficult to read and understand. I would recommend that a paper presenting experimental results that have not previously been published be accepted. Moreover, I believe that a discussion of these data and pertinent older data is worthy of publication. The theoretical considerations involved are very simple, however (apparent molal volumes of solutes, the effect of electro-striction, etc.), and the argument can and should be made simple and straightforward, with the elimination of unessential complicating factors, the avoidance of repetition, and the adoption of an order of presentation conducive to a logical development of the argument. The three-page skeleton manuscript which I sent you on November 2nd was intended to indicate the general type of revision I would suggest to the authors. It is not complete, though I think it outlines the major parts of the paper. Moreover, I did not intend to indicate that the outlined treatment is the only one that would be satisfactory to me. I accordingly believe that the paper should be revised in such a way as to shorten it to one-third its length and to improve it from the reader’s standpoint.

The following remarks refer to points 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Dr. Cohn’s letter of December 12th. Lack of definiteness in some instances is due to my not having the original manuscript at hand.

1. I feel that the Traube volumes are somewhat less satisfactory than a set such as in my outline because of the fact that no interpretation is given the unnecessary and artificial Traube correction volume for normal solutes. I do not understand the statement that my treatment cannot be used in certain cases. Thus, a sum of figures in my Table I applies to aspartic acid, and the table can be easily extended to include phenyl groups, etc.

2. For the sake of the reader a clear statement should be made regarding the source of all data, with, in the case of new experimental material, a little information as to the methods. I did not suggest that only previously unpublished data be given in the paper, but rather that the reader be not left in the dark as to the source of the data.

3. I am interested to read Dr. Cohn’s statement as to the purposes of the paper. Of the three purposes a, b. and c, a and b (supplying accurate values of apparent molal volumes and electrostriction) can be accomplished in a few pages. On the other hand, c, the determination of the dimensions of the amino acids, their salts and compounds, can not be accomplished with the use of volume data alone.

4. The section "Estimates from Spatial Considerations" is quite distinct from the rest of the paper, inasmuch as other sources of information than molal volumes must be drawn on, and it contributes nothing here, and taken up separately when needed for later considerations.

If you should desire, and would send me the manuscript again, I could give you a more detailed criticism of it.

Very truly yours,

Linus Pauling

LP:M