Letters to the Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Sir: It was with a great deal ofcommensurate sympadiy diat I read Dr. Pomeranze's essay, "SicTransit Gloria"[i]. Butit isnot inthespiritof"me-too" thatIofferhimthefollowing thought. It is always so much the case thathindsight is better than foresight. Even diough our discoveries may seem all important in die light ofsomeone's later publications, they represent only the first crude observations which others refine. In support ofdiis, two preliminary reports ofmine [2, 3] published in the early 1950s couldhave indeed been construed byme, in the light ofLeloir's laterwork, to have rightly heralded my group as discoverer ofthe UDP/ADP-glucosyltransferases. But, in a careful reading ofthe contributions ofLeloir and his group [4], I realize too well that although I did have the "bird in hand," I was woefully lacking in the abilities to delineate and describe in detail the nucleotide-glucosyltransferases at that time. I sincerely believe that we should be altruistic enough to realize that our publications are not (unfortunately, as many segments ofthe scientific community think today) for the purposes ofpublicizing ourselves, but rather to contribute to the sum-total ofhuman knowledge. references 1.Julius Pomeranze. Perspect. Biol. Med., 12:457, IQ692 .Jerome F. Fredrick. Fed. Proc, 9:170, 1950. 3. ---------. Ibid., 10:182, 1951. 4. D. Leloir.J. Amer. Chem. Soc, 79:6340, 1957. Jerome F. Fredrick, Ph.D. The Dodge Chemical Company Research Division 3425 Boston Post Road Bronx, New York 10469 Dear Sir; Professor Noblehas invited me to comment on his article "Race, Reality, and Experimental Psychology" (p. 10, this issue). There are so many areas ofagreement between his material and my own published writings and views thatat first I thought it might not be necessary to provide any additional statement. However, there are a number ofplaces that do need commentary in Noble's introduction and section 1. 117 Noble makes the following points which need commentary: i. An experimental approach to psychological problems ofrace and etbnic groups is preferable to a correlational approach. 2. Dreger espouses a "uniformity doctrine." 3. Dreger appears to be selectively indignant about totalitarianism. 4. There is innuendo in Dreger's review of Putnam's book to the effect that Putnam and his Stellassociates are anti-Semitic. 5. Dreger should have brought readers ofhis Putnam review up to date on clinical evidence pertinent to the 1954 Supreme Court desegregation decision. 6. Evidence should have been presented in Dreger's review on die effects ofsegregated versus desegregated classrooms. 7. Dreger 's statement ofPutnam's diesis is in error in several ways. My comments are: 1. An experimentalapproach isto be preferred. As I have said many times, "Our most assured knowledge comes from experiment." 2. I do not espouse a "uniformity doctrine" in contradistinction to Williams' views. Admitting an environmental bias is not the same as maintaining any "uniformity doctrine" [1, 2]. 3.Professor Noble's fairly direct allegation diat Professor Dreger is selectively indignant about themurdering ofNazi victims as compared with Communistvictims suggests a contrary-to-fact situation. How many Americans who were adults during World War II were opposed to our alliance widi Communist Russia before and during that period? Very few indeed—but I was one oftie few, because as a Christian minister before and during and for a while after, I felt Marxist and Leninist communism to be basically antithetical to the Christian gospel as were Stalinist excesses committed in die name ofcommunism . I still believe diis way. I earned opprobrium then, and have since, for insisting that though I see theoretical differences I can see no practical differences between a Nazi Germany which liquidated millions ofJews and a Communist Russia which liquidated millions ofkulaks and odiers. Labeling me, by direct implication, as part ofthe Left is strictly inaccurate. 4.I have read and reread my own review statements relating to Stell and I cannot find, as Professor Noble appears to, any innuendo imputing anti-Semitism or anti-socialism (or both) to witnesses in diat case. The only place I mention "Jewish" or "Socialist" in the entire review is in the second paragraph where I faidifully reflect Putnam's intent in his section on "Motivations" in chapter 2 ofhis Race and Reality [3...