"Reduplication of the Gene: Several times in the period around 1948 I stated that the gene probably consists of two complementary
parts, each of which can then produce a replica of the other. For example, in the 21st Sir Jesse Boot Foundation Lecture delivered
on Friday 28 May 1948 and published in 1948 I said:
"The detailed mechanism by means of which a gene or a virus molecule produces replicas of itself is not yet known. In general
the use of a gene or virus as a template would lead to the formation of a molecule no with identical structure but with complementary
structure. It might happen, of course, that a molecule could be at the same time identical with and complementary to the template
on which it is moulded. However, this case seems to me to be too unlikely to be valid in general, except in the following
way. If the structure that serves as a template (the gene or virus molecule) consists of, say, two parts, which are themselves
complementary in structure, then each of these parts can serve as the mould for the production of a replica of the other part,
and the complex of two complementary parts thus can serve as the mould for the production of duplicates of itself. In some
cases the two complementary parts might be very close together in space, and in other cases more distant from one another
- they might constitute individual molecules, able to move about within the cell."
The preceding sentences are "I believe that the same process of moulding of plastic materials into a configuration complementary
to that of another molecule, which serves as a template, is responsible for all biological specificity. I believe that the
genes serve as the templates on which are moulded the enzymes that are responsible for the chemical characters of the organisms,
and that they also serve as templates for the production of replicas of themselves."
Note by Linus Pauling. date unknown.
"I may say that I would not want to condense these papers into a single paper, because the subjects are different, although,
of course, closely related.
...You can now see that these papers really differ from one another, and that the amount of new material is such that it would
be wrong to confuse the reader by lumping everything into a single paper.
We may later - without doubt we shall - write some very detailed accounts of the whole business. I feel that this is the greatest
step that has ever been taken toward the solution of the general protein problem."
Letter from Linus Pauling to E. B. Wilson. March 7, 1951.
The proposer of this extraordinary formula for the nucleic acids has not quoted any significant evidence in support of it.
The ligation of five oxygen atoms about each phosphorous atom is such an unlikely structural feature that the proposed phospho-tri-anhydride
formula for the nucleic acids deserves no serious consideration.
Linus Pauling and Verner Schomaker. 1952.
Perhaps you will be interested, in a few years, to consider the possibility of spending your sabbatical year in Pasadena.
I hope that our work will be in just as interesting a period after a few years as it is now. In particular, the problem of
the structure of the nucleic acids may just be developing into a stage of rapid progress; right now not very much is being
done, from the x-ray standpoint.
Letter from Linus Pauling to Charles M. Apt. April 9, 1952.
"During recent years my work on the theory of resonance in chemistry has been under attack in Russia. Russian chemists have
been forbidden to make use of this theory in their scientific work. The action of the State Department in refusing me a passport
represents a different way of interfering with the progress of science and restricting the freedom of the individual citizen."
Linus Pauling. April 22, 1952.
"May I say that the only part of your speech of 6 June to which I might offer objection is your selection of the letter x,
rather than some other symbol, to refer to me. In algebra, as you remember, x is used to refer to an unknown quantity -- usually
the letters a and ba are used to refer to known quantities. I am not, however, an unknown quantity. I have not tried to keep
anything hidden in any way. I have been willing to answer any questions that the Secreatary of State might care to ask me
-- in fact, I have empasized my willingness in my letters to him, which he has not answered. I wish accordingly that you had
used one of the letters in the first part of the alphabet in referring to me. Let me say, however, that I have not objection
to your referring to me by that name. My character has already been damaged (I would not say assassinated, because I hope
that there is some chance of its being restored to full vigor); and now any statement that you make about me, referring to
me by name, will be helpful to me."
Linus Pauling to Sen. Wayne Morse. June 20, 1952.
"I have read your editorial of Thursday 15 May 1952, which has the heading 'He Will Stay at Home.' I assume that you will
now give your readers the benefit of a similar editorial, informing them that, although there has been no change in the situation,
the State Department, less than three months later, has reversed its decision and has issued me a passport. I have not received
any apology, such as was made to Professor Lattimore, but I think that the passport itself serves as an apology."
Linus Pauling to Editor of The Dallas Morning News. July 15, 1952.
"It is disgraceful that a committee of the United States Congress should permit and even aid such a scurvy unconscionable
person to cause trouble for respectable people. If Budenz is not prosecuted for perjury we must conclude that our courts and
Congressional committees are not interested in learning and disclosing the truth."
Linus Pauling. December 23, 1952.
"First, as to the form factor of the 7-strand cable, I must say that Crick has written me that he has evaluated the form factor
for a compound helix exactly. His expression is without doubt similar to the Cochran, Crick, and Vand expression for a simple
helix. I have been interested, however, in approximate expression that involve less work in calculation".
Letter from Linus Pauling to Gerald Oster. January 29, 1953.
"I have read through your paper on deoxyribonucleic acid-I think that you gave me a reprint, which, however, I lost, so that
I had forgotten about your work until reminded by your letter. Unless I have misunderstood this paper too, the structure that
you discussed for aggregates of nucleic acid molecules did not involved 6 twisted about a seventh, but rather 6 arranged hexagonally
about a seventh, and with axes parallel with that of the seventh".
Letter from Linus Pauling to Gerald Oster. January 29, 1953.
"I should be interested to know what sort of work you are carrying on at the present time. You mentioned your plan to do some
work on proteins in the future; have you started on this work, or are you working on nucleic acids, or other substances?"
Letter from Linus Pauling to Gerald Oster. January 29, 1953.
"A NOTE ABOUT HONEST JIM"
"Today Dr. Leonard Hamilton telephoned me from New York. He has been asked by Wilkins (with whom he has worked) and Crick
to arrange that a lawyer write a letter to Pusey, President of Harvard, objecting to the publication by Harvard University
Press of the book Honest Jim. He asked if I would be willing to join in. I said that I would like to know what was said in
the letter, abut that I did authorize that I be referred to in the letter, as well as Wilkins and Crick. I also said that
I would pay part of the legal expense. This does not, however, comit [sic] me, I said, to any further action, such as a libel suit.
Linus Pauling - Note to Self. Deer Flat Ranch, Salmon Creek, Big Sur, California (typed). May 4, 1967.
"I thank your for your letter and the two new paragraphs of your preface to Watson's book.
I must say that I was shocked to read [The Double Helix], perhaps one of the earlier drafts, after I had read your preface. I was indignant about the insinuation about my wife and
the statements about other people, but also indignant about Watson's treatment of you.
I do not think that you should give the book the support and validation that would be implied by your having written a preface,
even despite your disclaimer".
Letter from Linus Pauling to Sir Lawrence Bragg (The Royal Institution). May 17, 1967.
"Warren Weaver...that in the 1930s he had used the term molecular biology for the first time in a report of the Rockefeller
Foundation.
I think Warren Weaver's usage was quite significant.
This was largely Warren Weaver's idea, that the time had come when a more basic attack ought to be made on the problem of
life, in the field of biology and medicine.
Linus Pauling oral history interview, American Philosophical Society. March 1, 1971.
Question: How competitive about the double helix of DNA?
"Well, we weren't working very hard at it; we-I was using -we had really very little in the way of our own experimental data,
a few rather poor x-ray photographs of DNA, not carefully prepared. I wasn't putting much of my time on determining the structure.
I thought that I would get it worked out, you know, in a question of time; I didn't know that there was competition, that
is, I wasn't involved in a race".
Linus Pauling oral history interview, American Philosophical Society. March 1, 1971.
"...it was Wilkins' experimental work that put Watson and Crick on the right track."
Linus Pauling oral history interview, American Philosophical Society. March 1, 1971.
"Using [Robley Williams's] density, I calculated the number of polynucleotide chains per unit to be exactly three. This result
surprised me, because I had expected the value 2 if the nucleic acid fibres really represented genes. I decided, however,
that probably the fibres were artefacts, produced by the process of extraction...I am now astonished that I began work on
the triple helix structure, rather than on the double helix."
Linus Pauling. 1974.
"Mrs. Shipley, I think, was a scoundrel of the deepest dye."
Linus Pauling January 1977.
"In the same way, I might have discovered the double helix if I had concluded from the experimental evidence that the molecule
contained two polynucleotide chains rather than three".
Letter from Linus Pauling to Dr. Robert Paradowski. November 6, 1978.
