November 1951 - Linus Pauling Day-by-Day

Award: Gilbert Newton Lewis Medal, [Gold original, bronze copy] The California Section of the American Chemical Society, November 27, 1951. [Includes introductory speech] [Filed under LP Awards & Honors: 1951h.1]

Itinerary: Gilbert Newton Levis Medal Dinner and Award, Dr. Melvin Calvin’s home, Berkeley [Filed under LP Travel: Box #1.001, Folder #1.9]

Letter from B. H. Sage to H. H. G. Nash, cc: W.N. Lacey, LP, L.F. Prescott, and Ch.E.(2), RE: Says that as a result of their suggestion they will institute a physical inventory of capital equipment that winter and will report to him any losses which have occurred since their last inventory. Explains that their satisfactory methods of issuance keep their losses at a minimum. [Letter from Nash to Sage, November 27, 1951] [Filed under LP Biographical: Academia: (CIT: Materials re: Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 1946-1964.), Box #1.021, Folder #21.3] Letter from H. H. G. Nash to Prof. B. H. Sage, cc: Dr. W. N. Lacey, LP, and Mrs. L. F. Prescott, RE: Says that when the physical inventory he refers to has been made, they will be glad to check it against the policy schedule to be sure that there are no items of portable captial equipment not specifically covered by the insurance. [Letter from Sage to Nash, November 27, 1951] [Filed under LP Biographical: Academia: (CIT: Materials re: Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 1946-1964.), Box #1.021, Folder #21.3]

Letter from David Shoemaker to LP, RE: Says that he is looking forward to LP’s visit to Boston. Mentions that there are three students planning to go on to Caltech that are hoping to meet with LP. [Letter from LP to Shoemaker, November 23, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (Shoemaker, David P.), #363.3]

Letter from Edwin M. McMillan, Radiation Laboratory, UC Berkeley, to LP, RE: Thanks LP for his letter of congratulation. [Letter from LP to McMillan, November 21, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (McMillan, Edwin), #245.6]

Letter from Executive Secretary to Dr. Howard A. Meyerhoff, SCIENCE, RE: Informs Meyerhoff of LP’s itinerary from November 30-December 11 [Filed under LP Travel: Box #1.001, Folder #1.9]

Letter from Henry Allen Moe, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, to LP, RE: Encloses a copy of a letter from Dr. Roger Adams, University of Illinois Urbana, in which Adams makes suggestions for new-type fellowships; requests LP’s opinion of the suggested researchers. Informs him that he is leaving to go meet with Dr. Burch and thanks him for that idea. [Letter from LP to Moe, January 11, 1952] [Filed under LP Science: (John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, 1946-1952), Box #14.014, Folder #14.6]

Letter from JW Williams to Dr. F. Douglas Lawrason, Division of Medical Sciences, National Research Council, cc: LP, RE: Asks if authorization could be obtained for the trip he wishes to make to Pasadena to discuss with LP oxypolygelatin. [Additional note to LP: “As you will note from my letter to Lawrason, I hope to be able to arrange to come to you on or about January 25 for a period of some ten days. I hope the arrangements can be completed. With kind regards.”] [Filed under LP Science: (Materials re: Oxypolygelatin Blood Plasma Substitute, 1945-1951), Box #6.003, Folder #3.3]

Letter from LP [signed by Beatrice Wulf] to Mrs. J.W. McBain, RE: Cancels his trip to India due to health concerns. LP will not be able to visit the laboratories in Poona. [Letter from McBain to LP, October 22, 1951] [Filed under LP Travel: Box #1.001, Folder #1.9]

Letter from LP to A. Gero, Villanova College. [Letter from Gero to LP, September 22, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (G: Correspondence, 1951), #140.15]

November 27, 1951

Dr. A. Gero

Villanova College

Villanova, Pennsylvania

Dear Dr. Gero:

I thank you for your letter of September 22.

As to the attacks made on my work by Burawoy, Long, and Walash, I feel that it is hardly worth while to answer them. Your letter caused me to look again at Long's translation of Hückel's "Structure 1 Chemistry of Inorganic Compounds." If it were not so much of a bother, I would prepare a rebuttal to the last footnote; but, on the other hand, it seems to me hardly to be worth the trouble. As you suggest in your letter, the most convincing response would be a new edition of "The Nature of the chemical Bond," in which the problems are discussed in detail

With best regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

Dictated by Linus Pauling:W

Signed in his absence

Letter from LP to American Peace Crusade, RE: Informs them that he cannot serve as an officer of the American Peace Crusade for the coming year. States that he has a heavy workload and would be unable to devote the proper amount of time to the organization. Also, his distance from New York makes it difficult to serve. [Letter from Richardson and Uphaus, October 3, 1951] [Filed under LP Peace: (Assorted Peace Groups (Am)), Box #4.009, Folder #9.6]

Letter from LP to Britton Chance, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, RE: Says that his hemoglobin paper will be published in Science before the end of the year. [Letter from Chance to LP, October 2, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (Chance, Britton), #64.2]

Letter from LP to Charles W. Tucker, Jr., Metallurgy Section, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, RE: Suggests that he contact David Shoemaker about the matter. [Letter from Tucker to LP, October 24, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (T: Correspondence, 1951), #410.6]

Letter from LP to Crane Brinton, Chairman of the Society of Fellows, Harvard University, RE: States that, unfortunately, he does not have any suitable nominations at this time, but that he was hoping that he would send any information about the Society of Fellows for purposes of helping to set up a similar organization at Caltech. [Letter from Brinton to LP, November 8, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (S: Correspondence, 1951), #378.5]

Letter from LP to David F. Waugh, Department of Biology, MIT, RE: Replies that he does not have any extra copies of his protein slides. LP gives permission to use illustrations from Scientific American as the basis for lecture slides. [Letter from Waugh to LP,February 19, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (W: Correspondence, 1951), #443.19]

Letter from LP to Dr. I.S. Ravdin, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Surgery, RE: Thanks Dr. Ravdin for the letter and suggestion to meet in San Francisco. States he could not come to San Francisco but looks forward to talking about the plasma extender program. [Letter from Ravdin to LP, October 29, 1951] [Filed under LP Science: (Materials re: Oxypolygelatin Blood Plasma Substitute, 1945-1951), Box #6.003, Folder #3.3]

Letter from LP to Ernie Scheuer, RE: Thanks him for the clipping from The Oregonian. [Letter from LP to Scheuer, September 26, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (S: Correspondence, 1951), #378.5]

Letter from LP to Henry Allen Moe, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, RE: Recommends Oskar Fischinger for a new-type fellowship, discusses Fischinger’s abstract films, his favorable opinion of the artist, and his potential. Handwritten note in top right corner: “Guggenheim.” [Filed under LP Science: (John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, 1946-1952), Box #14.014, Folder #14.6]

Letter from LP to Henry Allen Moe, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, RE: Recommends awarding James Arthur Campbell a Guggenheim Fellowship. Favors him teaching at Oberlin College and feels that he would be a good teacher, states that his background in research is not outstanding but that he can still do something useful in one of the laboratories that he mentioned working at in his proposal. Handwritten note in top right corner: “Guggenheim.” [Filed under LP Science: (John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, 1946-1952), Box #14.014, Folder #14.6]

Letter from LP to J. L. Morrison, RE: Comments on the dye-protein paper. [Filed under LP Science: (Typescript, Correspondence, Notes: The Non-Specific Precipitation of Dyes and Proteins), Box #7.001, Folder #1.8]

Letter from LP to Melville L. Wolfrom, Department of Chemistry, Ohio State University, RE: Thanks him for the kind note and says that reprints of the papers on proteins will be sent under separate cover. [Filed under LP Correspondence: (W: Correspondence, 1951), #443.19]

Letter from LP to Melville L. Wolfrom, RE: States that he is sending reprints. [Filed under LP Science:(National Academy of Sciences,1945-1951), Box #14.019, Folder #19.4]

Letter from LP to Prof. Sutherland, RE: States that special privileges towards the Proceedings to members of the Royal Society would not be possible at this time. Suggests submitting papers through him for publication. [Letter from Sutherland to LP, December 5, 1951] [Filed under LP Science:(National Academy of Sciences, 1945-1951), Box #14.019, Folder #19.4]

Letter from LP to Professor Hallweg, Swiss Chemical Society, RE: Thanks him for the letter and provides his mailing address so they can send him copies of Helvetica Chimica Acta. [Letter from Hallweg to LP, October 26, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (S: Correspondence, 1951), #378.5]

Letter from LP to T. K. Freeman, Research Assistant, Department of Physics, State College of Washington, RE: States that reprints on Dr. Corey’s and his work on the structure of protein will be sent to him under separate cover. Mentions other papers that will be published soon. [Letter from Freeman to LP, October 22, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (D: Correspondence, 1951), #98.16]

Letter from LP to Toshio Sasa, RE: Suggests that he select a field of chemistry that does not require costly equipment, which Sasa’s interest, mass-spectrometry, does. LP encourages future letters dealing with specific chemical questions. [Note from Sasa to LP, August 28, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (S: Correspondence, 1951), #378.5]

Letter from LP, dictated, to Melba Phillips, Secretary, American Association of Scientific Workers, RE: States that he does not feel that he has been an effective officer of the AAScW so he has decided not to run for office again. States that he has not had time to pay proper attention to the questions that she raised and he thinks the board deserves someone who can work more effectively with them. [Filed under LP Peace: (Assorted Peace Groups (Am)), Box #4.009, Folder #9.1]

Manuscript, Typescripts, Research Notes: Configurations of Polypeptide Chains with Equivalent CIS Amide Groups, November 27, 1951. [Filed under LP Manuscripts of Articles: 1951a2.15]

Newspaper Clipping: “Chemists Plan Award Dinner”, Oakland (California) Tribune, November 27, 1951. [Filed under LP Biographical: Scrapbooks, 1951-1955: Box #6.006, Folder #6.15]

Newspaper Clipping: “Dr. Pauling to Get Medal”, Pasadena (California) Star-News, November 27, 1951. [Filed under LP Biographical: Scrapbooks, 1951-1955: Box #6.006, Folder #6.15]

Newspaper Clipping: “Professors to Receive Medal”, Los Angeles Times, November 27, 1951. [Filed under LP Biographical: Scrapbooks, 1951-1955: Box #6.006, Folder #6.15]

Note from Samuel L. Snyder to LP, RE: Asks a series of questions pertaining to his protein work and its relation to cancer research. [Letter from LP to Snyder, December 19, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (S: Correspondence, 1951), #378.5]

Press Release: The Future of Structural Chemistry, acceptance speech, Gilbert Newton Lewis Medal, California Section of the American Chemical Society, Berkeley, California, November 27, 1951. [Filed under LP Speeches: 1951s.19]

Program: American Chemical Society California Section Golden Anniversary First Annual Award Dinner, November 27, 1951. [Filed under LP Biographical: Scrapbooks, 1951-1955: Box #6.006, Folder #6.16, and LP Speeches: 1951s.19]

Typescript: Gilbert Newton Lewis Medal, Acceptance by Linus C. Pauling. [Filed under LP Speeches: 1951s.19]

GILBERT NEWTON LEWIS MEDAL ACCEPTANCE

By Linus Pauling

California Section of the American Chemical Society

Berkeley, November 27, 1951

It is with great pleasure and appreciation that I receive the first Gilbert Newton Lewis Medal of the California Section of the American Chemical Society. I have for decades been a great admirer of Gilbert Newton Lewis. I remember when I first learned about his existence -- I am afraid that it was a rather shadowy existence for me, and that it was some time before I considered him a real person, rather than a mythical figure, one of those distant beings who wrote scientific papers that could be published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society and similar journals.

When I was eighteen years old, in 1919, and was unable to return to Oregon Agricultural College to continue my studies, at the end of my sophomore year, I was offered full-time appointment as assistant in quantitative analysis. I had a very heavy teaching load -- long hours in the quant lab, and also some classroom periods with several sections of quant students. In addition, I prepared unknowns for analysis by students and carried out miscellaneous jobs in the field of quantitative analysis. There was some time, however, for me to follow my own inclinations, and the circumstance that my office was also the chemistry library, rarely entered by anyone, gave rise to a habit of reading the chemical literature. My attention was first attracted by the papers by Irving Langmuir on the electronic structure of molecules, and his reference to Lewis's 1916 paper sent me back three years in the literature of this paper. The illuminating concept of the shared electron pair chemical bond, as formulated by Lewis, made an immediate appeal to my imagination; and I believe that I decided then that the field of molecular structure and the nature of the chemical bond would be one to which I would devote attention in my later life.

The greatness of Lewis's fundamental contribution, the idea of the shared electron pair, can be realized in this modern world only if we try to put ourselves in Lewis's place. In his 1916 paper, "the Atom and the Molecule," we read, with, I think, some shock, that Lewis was not certain that the atomic number of helium is 2 -- he mentioned that, although Moseley's work supported the value of 2, the value 4, suggested by Rydberg, who had inserted two unknown elements between hydrogen and helium, might nevertheless be the correct one.

It is interesting that Lewis in his 1916 paper emphasized the cubical atom, rather than the tetrahedral atom. Toward the end of his paper he discusses the tetrahedral atom, pointing out that the formation of triple bonds and other chemical facts support the tetrahedral atom rather than the cubical atom. He mentioned that in reaching the conclusion that the tetrahedral atom is a superior concept he had had the benefit of discussions with members of the Department in the University of California, including such men as Gerald Branch.

In his Silliman Lecture, Lewis also discussed the question of absolute truth. This is an interesting question in science -- for example, was it truthful to say, before 1905, that bodies move in ways corresponding to Newton's laws of motion? This matter in relation to Lewis's tetrahedral atom was raised by a question asked me by one of my freshman students last week. he asked which was the s orbital and which three were the p orbitals in the four tetrahedral bonds formed by a tetrahedral carbon atom, as in methane. I replied, of course, that chemists now described the four orbitals of the L shell of a tetrahedral carbon in methane as four equivalent tetrahedral orbitals, hybrids of the s and p orbitals -- and then I pointed out that if it had ben the good fortune of Gilbert Newton Lewis to have determined the detailed electronic structure of atoms from chemical properties we would doubtless consider the four tetrahedral orbitals as fundamental, and would say that physicists (spectroscopists) sometimes found it convenient to hybridize these tetrahedral orbitals into one s orbital and three p orbitals. The student then asked whether the s orbital and p orbitals were the real ones, and the tetrahedral orbitals the hybrid ones, or the other way around. I explained the situation again, and pointed out that the one set had just as great significance as the other set of orbitals. Here we have an example, I think, of what Lewis had in mind in discussing absolute truth, and why he said that he sympathized with the preacher who began his sermon with the words "Paradoxical as it may seem to thee, O Lord, . . ."

After thirty-five years, the fundamental ideas about the electronic structure of molecules that were expressed by Lewis still retain their validity and significance. Since 1916 the physicists have elucidated the electronic structure of atoms and, through the theory of quantum mechanics, have provided a sound theoretical basis for the shared electron pair bond. I feel that the details of the electronic structure of molecules are all contained within the theory of quantum mechanics. In attempting to foresee the future of the Lewis theory -- the future of structural chemistry -- I have no hope that a radical new theory of molecular structure will be developed. When, after months of labor, a reasonably good solution of the Schrödinger equation is obtained for some molecule, it is always found that it agrees reasonably well with the structure of the molecule as induced from experiment; the calculated values of properties of substances, as given by their molecular structure and the theory of quantum mechanics, agree with the observed properties of substances, as given by their molecular structure and the theory of quantum mechanics, agree with the observed properties as closely as the degree of approximation in the solution of the Schrödinger equation justifies. Perhaps some improved approximate methods of the wave equation will be found. I feel sure that Gilbert Newton Lewis would not be greatly interested in these laborious calculations, these approximate methods -- except, probably, the Monte Carlo method, which might well have appealed to him.

With the development of giant calculating machines, theoretical chemistry may go into a new period -- a period in which theoretical values of the properties of substances, information about the structure of molecules and crystals, will be obtained by reasonably accurate solution of the Schrödinger wave equation. I am sure that this procedure will not, however, constitute an important part of the field of structural chemistry even in the distance future. I believe that we need to take up again the characteristic chemical method of attack on the problems of the nature of the world -- the method of induction from chemical facts, the formulation of generalizations based on experience, and independent of a priori arguments. In 1916 Lewis said that, as chemists, we should not be distracted in our task by a priori arguments such as that electrostatic repulsion of eight electrons in an atom would force them to the corners of a cube, but should rather make inductions independently from the facts of chemistry -- namely, in this case, that there are pairs of electrons at tetrahedron corners. For twenty years, since the first applications of quantum mechanics to chemistry, it has been thought hardly proper to attack chemical problems in an imaginative and independent way. Physicists, and even some more chemists, have not taken kindly to the theory of metals that I formulated a few years ago, in which copper is assigned a metallic valency of 5.44, and other elements are assigned similar unexpected valencies. I foresee that a period of significant development in structural chemistry can take place in the future through the renewed effort to apply this characteristic chemical method of advance, the formulation of chemical principles by induction from chemical facts.

At the present time the theory of the electronic structure of molecules is in large part still qualitative. For example, we may discuss the structure of a molecule or complex ion such as the sulfate ion in terms first of the Lewis Structure, as given in 1916 -- the structure in which the sulfur atom shares one electron pair with each of the four oxygen atoms that surround it tetrahedrally. then, arguing largely from the observed inter-atomic distances and from the principle of approximate electrical neutrality of all atoms, we may assign to each of the sulfur-oxygen bonds some double-bond character (or, rather, pi-bond character, since each of the two different pi electron pairs of an oxygen atom may enter into pi-bond formation with the sulfur atom), with use of orbitals of the sulfur atom exceeding the octet (that is, other than the sp³ orbitals).

I suggest it may be possible to formulate a quantitative theory of electronic structure -- only an approximate theory, to be sure -- by discussing the energy of a molecule or crystal in an empirical, approximate way. Quadratic functions are so convenient mathematically that it will without doubt be desirable to make a first attempt at an approximate quantitative theory of molecular structure by constructing an energy function in which quadratic terms represent the important structural features, and quadratic cross terms represent their interactions with one another. For example, in the sulfate ion we may begin with a Lewis structure, in which the four single bonds are assigned a certain amount of partial ionic character. If we represent the partial ionic character as a parameter, x, say, a quadratic term of the form 1/2k(x-x₀)² would be written in the energy function for the molecule, in which x₀ is a normal amount of partial ionic character, as given by the difference in electronegativity of sulfur and oxygen. the coefficient k would then express the tendency of the bond to approximate the normal amount of partial ionic character -- the value of k, like that of x₀, would be formulated by consideration of empirical information. Then, in addition, terms of the form 1/2k'n_Π2 would be introduced to represent the resistance of the sulfur atom to forming pi bonds with the use of its unstable orbitals, beyond the sp³ subshell. A term 1/2k"Σ² would then be introduced for each atom, in which Σ is the total electrical charge on the atom. This term would represent the tendency for the atom to have the minimum charge -- that is, k" is the constant for that atom, of the electroneutrality principle. There is empirical evidence that the individual charges conferred on the atom by its various bonds need to be considered separately, and that terms of the sort 1/2k'''x_ix_j need to be introduced, in which x_i and x_j are the charges placed on the sulfur atom by two oxygen atoms i and j. The introduction of terms of this sort corresponds to a picture of the sulfur atom such that the electrons involved in the bonds to different oxygen atoms are localized in space, rather than being distributed with spherical symmetry about the nucleus of the sulfur atom. This picture is, of course, a reasonable one.

The actual electronic structure of the complex ion, in terms of this chemical method of description, would then be found by minimizing the energy with respect to the various parameters contained in the energy expression. Properties of sulfates could then be predicted, as determined by the distribution of energy, the amount of pi-bond character, and so on. From the moments of inertia and vibrational frequencies thermodynamic properties could be calculated; an in general a system of this sort might be applied so widely as to permit it to be described as constituting an essentially complete approximate theory of the structure and properties of substances.

Perhaps I am pessimistic in feeling that quantum mechanics as known at the present time constitutes theory of molecular structure, and that we cannot hope for the discovery of a greatly simplified theory of structural chemistry. I wish that I could believe that I am pessimistic, and that a find, accurate, simple theory that would not require giant calculating machines for its application to the molecules that the chemist is interested in, such as penicillin or hemoglobin, could be discovered. Whatever the future of structural chemistry may turn out to be, I know that the discovery of the shared electron pair bond by Gilbert Newton Lewis in 1916 will remain forever in the minds of chemists as marking the beginning of the period of modern development of theoretical structural chemistry.