August 1, 1939
Professor Arthur B. Lamb, Editor
Journal of the American Chemical Society
Chemical Laboratory of Harvard University
12 Oxford Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Dear Professor Lamb:
In our recent paper on “The Structure of Proteins” Professor Carl Niemann and I gave
a brief summary of the evidence regarding one question of fundamental importance,
that as to whether the polypeptide chain or the cyclol fabric occurs to a preponderant
extent in nature.
Many papers supporting the cyclol hypothesis have been published in recent years by
Dr. Wrinch. About one year ago Dr. Wrinch and Dr. Langmuir began publishing statements
that x-ray data had proved the correctness of the C2 cyclol structure for the insulin
molecule. These statements and others in extensive cyclol literature had given many
people interested in proteins the incorrect idea that the cyclol hypothesis was generally
accepted by workers in the field of structural chemistry. It accordingly seemed to
Dr. Niemann and me that it would be wise to prepare the restrained discussion of the
question which was published in the July number of the Journal.
As an Associate Editor of the Journal, I believe that the Journal should not publish
an extensive series of polemical papers by Pauling and Niemann be published only under
the following conditions:
(1) That it adhere to the subjects discussed by Pauling and Niemann.
(2) That it contain no arguments already published by Dr. Wrinch; there is no need
to use the valuable space of the Journal for the repetition of material published
elsewhere by the same author. (You will recall that a Communication by Dr. Wrinch
was given simultaneous duplicate publication last year: J.A.C.S., 60, 2005 (1935)
and Science, 88, 148 (1938).)
In addition I suggest that Pauling and Niemann be allowed to submit a response under
the following conditions, analogous to those above.
(1’) That it adhere to the subjects discussed by Dr. Wrinch in her rebuttal.
(2’) That it contain no arguments already published by Pauling and Neimann.
I suggest further that the series be limited to the single rebuttal and response (to
be published simultaneously), and that publication of the rebuttal and response be
delayed until Dr. Wrinch and Pauling and Niemann have had ample opportunity for revision
of their respective manuscripts and have approved both manuscripts in their final
form.
I feel that the manuscript submitted by Dr. Wrinch (received July 19, 1939) does not
satisfy the conditions 1 and 2 suggested above, and I recommend that it be not accepted
for publication, and that Dr. Wrinch be invited to prepare a manuscript in accordance
with the schedule proposed above.
Professor Niemann and I are submitting separately our detailed comments on the manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Linus Pauling
