BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
TOPICAL OUTLINE
MAJOR PAPERS
INTERVIEW HISTORY AND RELATED MATERIALS
EARLY AND FAMILY LIFE: LEAVING AUSTRIA
COLLEGE EDUCATION IN THE US AND THE JACKSON LAB
GRADUATE STUDIES AND THESIS WORK
RADIATION AND EMBRYOLOGY AND THE OAK RIDGE LAB
PARTNERSHIP WITH HUSBAND WILLIAM RUSSELL
BALANCING CHILDREN AND RESEARCH AT OAK RIDGE
WOMEN IN SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC WRITING
COMPARING OAK RIDGE AND JACKSON LABS
TODAY'S RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT; SPONTANEOUS MUTATION
TERATOGENESIS; PRIVATIZED FUNDING
CLOSING REMARKS; EFFORTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

BACK TO MAIN LIST
|
Liane Brauch Russell,
currently semi-retired from her research at the Oak Ridge Laboratory, is a
distinguished mammalian geneticist. She is best known for her development of the
fur-spot test in mice and her work in radiation-induced mutations. Dr.
Russell’s research has contributed enormously to genetic risk assessment
worldwide. Biographical Sketch
Liane Russell was born in 1923 in Vienna, Austria. She lived there until 1938
when, during World War II, her family moved to London. She completed her
secondary schooling in England and then moved to the United States. She got her
bachelor’s degree at Hunter College in New York in 1945 and her PhD from the
University of Chicago under Sewall Wright. She began working at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in 1947 after working as a technician at the Jackson Labs
and meeting her future husband William Russell. She has worked at Oak Ridge as
section and division head. Her research has focused on radiation biology and
its genetic implications. She also studied sex chromosomes and helped formulate
the hypothesis that one X chromosome in females in inactive. She is most noted for studying the effects of
radiation during various periods of embryological development and for the large
collection of mice she and her husband built up at Oak Ridge. She was awarded
the Enrico Fermi award in 1994.
|
This interview is organized chronologically, beginning with her family life and
her move from Austria to England to the United States during World War II;
summer research at Jackson Lab; transition from medical aspirations to research;
thesis work on teratogenesis of radiation; studying X chromosomes and sex
linked mutations; researching the effect of radiation on the mouse genome; transfer
to Oak Ridge Labs with William Russell; finishing up PhD work; balancing
children and a scientific career and thoughts on women in science; writing
scientific papers; role as division head of Oak Ridge; more work on
teratogenesis; and the privatization of science. Major topics of interest
include the state of Austria during World War II; the genetics of mutations
from radiation; teratogenesis of radiation; sex linked mutations; the mouse
genome; working as a mother and as a scientist; the current state of genetic
research; and reminiscences of William Russell, Alexander Hollaender, and
Richard Woychik.
|
Liane Russell: A Selection of Her Major Papers
1. Russell,
Liane Brauch.
X-ray induced developmental abnormalities in the mouse and their use in the
analysis of embryological patterns. I. External and gross visceral changes. J.
Exptl. Zool. 114:545-602,
1950. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.1401140307/abstract
2. Russell,
Liane Brauch
and W. L. Russell. Radiation hazards to the embryo and fetus. Radiology 58:369-376, 1952.
An excerpt is available online at: http://radiology.rsna.org/content/58/3/369.extract
3. Russell,
Liane Brauch,
and W. L. Russell. An analysis of the changing radiation response of the
developing mouse embryo. J. Cellular Comp. Physiol. 43, Suppl. 1:103-149, 1954.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcp.1030430407/pdf
4. Russell,
Liane Brauch
and Mary H. Major. Radiation-induced presumed somatic mutations in the house
mouse. Genetics 42:161-175,
1957. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209821/
5. Russell, W. L., Liane Brauch Russell and Josephine
Gower. Exceptional inheritance of a sex-linked gene in the mouse explained on
the basis that the X/0 sex-chromosome constitution is female. Proc. Nat.
Sci. U.S. 45:554-560, 1959.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC222595/pdf/pnas00191-0128.pdf
6. Welshons, W. J. and Liane Brauch. The Y-chromosome as the
bearer of male-determining factors in the mouse. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.
45:560-566, 1959.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC222596
7. Russell,
Liane Brauch
and Jean W. Bangham. Variegated-type position effects in the mouse. Genetics
46:509-525, 1961.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1210216/pdf/509.pdf
8. Russell,
Liane Brauch.
Genetics of mammalian sex chromosomes. Science 133:1795-1803, 1961. Not available online. Abstract: The great strides made during the
past two years in the whole field of mammalian cytogenetics have, in
particular, enlarged our knowledge of the role of the mammalian sex
chromosomes. The following summary briefly lists the most recent discoveries in
the mouse, where genetic findings have played a relatively greater role than in
the other species of mammals. The male-determining property of the mammalian Y
chromosome, established earlier in mouse and man, has been further confirmed by
the finding of an XXY mouse, which was detected by genetic means and has been
studied cytologically. This animal is a fully viable, phenotypically normal,
though sterile, male. Since various doubts concerning detectability of the XXY
type have been removed by the discovery of this animal, it can be concluded
that the occurrence of XXY in the mouse is extremely rare. It has been shown
that the X chromosome of the mouse, when it is involved in certain chromosomal
rearrangements, has the power to produce variegated-type position effects, a
phenomenon formerly not observed in any animal except Drosophila. The fact that
the X chromosome is involved in all four of the known cases of V-type position
effect in the mouse indicates that it is strongly heterochromatic, while there
may be little heterochromatin on the autosomes. Recent findings have shown that
the presence of two X chromosomes is necessary for the expression of the
position effect in one of them. This fact, when related to various cytological
findings in other species, permits the hypothesis that, in mammals, genic
balance requires the action of one X in a manner which precludes realization of
its heterochromatic potentialities, so that only any additional X's present
assume the properties characteristic of heterochromatin. A variety of different
findings sheds light on the mechanisms that may lead to the occurrence of
individuals with abnormal numbers of sex chromosomes. The XXY mouse proves, by
virtue of its sex-linked marker genes, that nondisjunction can occur in the
first meiotic division of a normal male (a proof not previously provided by
human cases of XXY, which could have been of different origin). However,
first-meiotic nondisjunction is apparently very rare in males, and there is not
yet any evidence that it ever occurs in females. Data from numerous types of
crosses involving five sex-linked markers yield the following results: no cases
of X(M)X(M)Y or OX(P) have occurred to date; X(M)X(P)Y << X(M)O; OX(P)
<< X(M)O (where the superscripts M and P designate maternal and paternal
derivation, respectively, of the X). The total frequency of XO individuals can
be increased by irradiation shortly after fertilization. This treatment has
yielded, in addition to X(M)O, several animals of the OX(P) constitution, a
type that has not yet been found to occur spontaneously. The various findings
on spontaneous and induced frequencies of mice with abnormal numbers of sex
chromosomes lead to the conclusion that XO individuals are most often the
result of events occurring after fertilization. Specifically, it is suggested
that there exists a relatively high probability of loss of the paternally
contributed sex chromosome some time between fertilization and the first
cleavage(32).
9. Russell,
Liane Brauch. Chromosome Aberrations in Experimental Mammals. In, PROGRESS IN MEDICAL
GENETICS, Vol. 2, eds. A. G. Steinberg and A. G. Bearn. Grune & Stratton,
Inc., New York, pp. 230-294, 1962. Not available online. Abstract: A review of work on chromosome
aberrations in experimental mammals during the past 10 years is presented. Only
chromosomal aberrations in germ cells, or arising from the circumstances of
fertilization, are included. Discussion is given on changes that affect entire
chromosomes (heteroploidy), including both those involving entire chromosome
sets (euploid heteroploidy) and those involving individual chromosomes
(aneuploid conditions either of a known or of an unspecified nature); changes
that involve additions or deletions of portions of individual chromosomes
(duplications and deficiencies); and rearrangements of chromosome material
(inversions and translocations).
10. Russell,
Liane Brauch. Mammalian X-chromosome action: inactivation limited in spread and in
region of origin. Science 140:976-978,
1963. Not available online. Abstract:
In its simplest form the
hypothesis of the single-active-X chromosome does not explain variegated-type
position effects in the mouse. Inactivity appears not to involve one entire X
chromosome; furthermore, even those parts of the chromosome that can change to
an inactive state spread inactivation not to the entire attached piece of
autosome, but along a gradient to limited distances.
11. Russell,
Liane B.
Genetic and functional mosaicism in the mouse. In, "The Role of
Chromosomes in Development", ed. Michael Locke. Academic Press, Inc. (New
York), pp. 153-181, 1964. Not available online.
12. Russell,
Liane Brauch
and Florence N. Woodiel. A spontaneous mouse chimera formed from separate
fertilization of two meiotic products of oogenesis. Cytogenetics 5:106-119, 1966. Not
available online.
13. Russell,
Liane B. Definition of
functional units in a small chromosomal segment of the mouse and its use in
interpreting the nature of radiation-induced mutations. Mutation Res. 11:107-123, 1971. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0027510771900364.
Abstract:
Complementation mapping of a small chromosomal region of the mouse has
defined a linear series of functional units and has aided in the interpretation
of the nature of radiation-induced genetic changes. Mutations used for this
purpose were derived from specific-locus mutation-rate experiments and were
detected by their visible phenotype in combination with the test-stock's
linkage-group-2 markers d and se (recombination frequency 0.16%).
A total of 235 mutants of this type have been recovered, and 102 of these were
used in complementation tests involving over 800 combinations and about 40000
progeny.
While the original screening for mutants employed only 2
markers, the subsequent analysis has, so far, revealed 16 complementation
groups spanning 8 or 9 functional units. Involvement in a mutation of 2 or more
functional units is taken to indicate chromosomal aberration. All mutations are
consistent with a linear map, except for 2, which appear to “skip” units but
have been shown not to result from recombinationally separable changes. These 2
mutations, 1 of which gives “conversion”-like results in recombination tests,
are interpreted as small rearrangements. The remaining multi-unit mutations
are, for the time being, taken to be deficiencies. Although there is evidence
that homozygous deficiency of either 1 of the marked loci gives a visible
effect, this by itself is no proof against the single-unit mutations being “point”
mutations (perhaps single base-pair changes).
A strong effect of irradiated cell stage can be
demonstrated, both on the locus-spectrum (i.e., relative frequencies of
events involving d, se, or both) and on frequency of mutations
that are interpreted as aberrations. The latter ranges from 13.5% in most X-or
?-rayed spermatogonia, through 42.3% in postgonial stages, to 65.6% in oocytes.
Within spermatogonia, neutron irradiation and 24-h fractionation of X-rays
shifts the distribution in the direction of postgonial results. The rest of the
irradiated spermatogonia closely resemble the control distribution.
14. Russell,
Liane Brauch.
Numerical sex-chromosome anomalies in mammals: their spontaneous occurrence and
use in mutagenesis studies. In, "Chemical Mutagens - Principles and
Methods for Their Detection," Vol.4, Ed. A. Hollaender, Plenum Press (New
York), pp. 55-91, 1976. Not available online.
15. Russell,
Liane B.
In vivo somatic mutation systems in the mouse. Genetics 92:s153-s163, 1979. Abstract:
In an effort to meet the need for a fast and cheap in vivo prescreen for
inherited mammalian point mutations, a somatic forward-mutation method,
originally developed in an X-ray experiment, has more recently been tested in
work with chemical mutagens. The method makes use of coat-color mutations
because (a) the gene product is usually locally expressed, (b) mosaics can be
detected with minimal effort, and (c) opportunities for making comparison with
induction of germinal point mutations are greatest.--Following treatment of
embryos that are heterozygous at specific coat-color loci, various induced
genetic changes can result in expression of the recessive (RS) in clones
derived from "mutant" melanocyte precursor cells. However, other
events, such as decrease in the number of precursor cells, or disturbed
differentiation, can also result in spots, which with careful classification can
usually be distinguished from RS's on the basis of their location and color.
When this is done, the relative RS frequencies for a series of compounds at
least roughly parallel the relative spermatogonial mutation rates. The fact
that easily measurable (though low) RS rates are obtained with compounds that
have yielded negative results in spermatogonial tests is not surprising in view
of the fact that RS's can be caused by several mechanisms besides point
mutation.--In spite of the parallelism observed in one laboratory, the
usefulness of the in vivo somatic mutation method as a prescreen could come to
be doubted because of major discrepancies between results of similar
experiments at different laboratories. However, it appears probable that at
least some of these discrepancies are due to failure to discriminate between
spots that probably resulted from melanocyte insufficiency and spots that
resulted from expression of the recessive.--Reverse somatic mutation systems
can potentially avoid some of the pitfalls of forward mutation systems. Such
system are still in developmental stages.
16. Russell,
Liane B.
Sensitivity patterns for the induction of homeotic shifts in a favorable strain
of mice. Teratology 20:115-125,
1979. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tera.1420200115/pdf.
Abstract: In an effort to develop a
prescreening system that is sensitive, is compatible with in-vivo
administration of presumptive teratogens, and utilizes morphological endpoints,
we are studying the induction of homeotic shifts in the axial skeleton. Our
earlier work had demonstrated the existence of critical periods for certain
such shifts, even though the (C57BL x NB)F1 hybrid used was not entirely
suitable for this purpose. Using 100 R X-rays on successive days during the
period of major organogenesis, we have now analyzed the sensitivity pattern of
the BALB/c, since this strain normally straddles thresholds for the position of
axial borders. Mortality, birthweight, and skeletal anomalies were analyzed, in
addition to the homeotic shifts. --Day 9 1/4 postconception was clearly the
most sensitive stage for the production of posterior shifts at the
thoraco-lumbar border and the lumbo-sacral border, and for increases in the
number of sternebrae and costo-sternal junctions. Anterior shift could be induced
three days later, on day 12 1/4, but this was confined to only one of the four
characters, the thoraco-lumbar border. There are a number of indications that,
at given stages during the study period, BALB/c embryos correspond
developmentally to chronologically somewhat earlier stages of two strains
studied previously. The present results do not support the hypothesis that
factors influencing the quantitative skeletal characters act by way of body
size. --Since homeotic shifts can be produced by a number of mechanisms and are
obvious indications that developmental interference has occurred, and since
such shifts are easy to score and convenient to analyze quantitatively, our
identification of a highly suitable strain and of stages of maximum sensitivity
in this strain should aid in making the system useful in the prescreening for
chemical teratogens.
17. Russell,
Liane B.
Meiotic nondisjunction in the mouse: methodology for genetic testing and
comparison with other methods. Env. Health Persp. 31:113-128, 1979.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637639/pdf/envhper00476-0113.pdf
Abstract: Since trisomies produce
adverse effects relatively late in development or even postnatally, they are an
important component of the array of genetic damages that might be caused by
environmental agents. Whole-chromosome aneuploidy (as opposed to
breakage-derived aneuploidy) might come about secondarily from crossover
depression, or could follow damage to the meiotic spindle or to kinetochores.
For simplicity, the event—by whichever of the mechanisms—is referred to as
meiotic nondisjunction (ND). A genetic method has been devised which is based
on the facts that ND involving the sex chromosomes produces mostly viable mice,
and that such exceptional animals can be externally recognized by the use of
appropriate markers. The method is compared with the following other ND
indicators: univalent and/or chiasma frequencies at M I; number of dyads at M
II; extra sex chromosomes in spermatids; karyotypes in cleavage, morula, or
blastocyst metaphases; and chromosome constitution of mid-gestation embryos.
Some of the cytological endpoints are found to be unreliable. Various
biological variables (germ-cell stage, sex, age) are examined with a view
toward maximizing the chances for detecting induced nondisjunction. While
experimental evidence on this question is equivocal, a consideration of the
probable ND mechanisms suggests that the early spermatocyte (in stages
including the premeiotic S phase) may be a favorable test object. The numerical
sex-chromosome anomaly (NSA) method is useful not only in the study of ND but
also in detecting breakage-derived chromosome losses induced in females, where
the dominant lethal test is not easily applicable.
18. Russell,
L. B., C. S.
Montgomery, and G. D. Raymer. Analysis of the albino-locus region of the mouse:
IV. Characterization of 34 deficiencies. Genetics 100:427-453, 1982.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201821/pdf/427.pdf.
Abstract: Thirty-four independent nonviable
c-locus mutations (types cal, albino lethal and cas, albino subvital), derived
from radiation experiments, were tested for involvement of nearby markers tp,
Mod-2, sh-1, and Hbb: 10, 22, and 2 involved, respectively, none of these
markers, Mod-2 alone, and Mod-2 plus sh-1. When classified on this basis, as
well as according to developmental stage at which homozygotes die, and by
limited complementation results, the 34 independent mutations fell into 12
groups. From results of a full-scale complementation grid of all 435 possible
crosses among 30 of the mutations, we were able to postulate an alignment of
eight functional units by which the 12 groups fit a linear pattern. Abnormal
phenotypes utilized in the complementation study were deaths at various stages
of prenatal or postnatal development, body weight, and reduction or absence of
various enzymes. Some of these phenotypes can be separated by complementation
e.g., there is no evidence that mitochondrial malic enzyme influences survival
at any age); others cannot thus be separated (e.g., glucose-6-phosphatase
deficiency and neonatal death).--We conclude that all of the nonviable albino
mutations are deficiencies overlapping at c, and ranging in size from less than
2cM to 6-11 cM. The characterization of this array of deficiencies should
provide useful tools for gene-dosage studies, recombinant-DNA fine-structure
analyses, etc. Since many of the combinations of lethals produce viable albino
animals that resemble the standard c/c type, we conclude (a) that the c locus
contains no sites essential for survival, and (b) that viable nonalbino c-locus
mutations (cxv) are the result of mutations within the c cistron. Viable
albinos (cav, the majority of radiation-induced c-locus mutations) may be
intracistronic mutations or very small deficiencies.
19. Russell,
L. B. and C. S.
Montgomery. Supermutagenicity of ethylnitrosourea in the mouse spot test;
comparisons with methylnitrosourea and ethylnitrosourethane. Mutation
Research 92:193-204, 1982.
Not available online. Abstract:
The effects of the 3 related compounds ethylnitrosourea (ENU),
methylnitrosourea (MNU), and ethylnitrosourethane (NEC) were studied in the
mouse spot test. ENU induces a large number of recessive spots (RS) and, due to
its low toxicity, can be applied at relatively high doses. This combination of
properties makes it the most efficient spot-test mutagen, as shown in a
comparison with 16 other chemicals, even though, on the basis of molarity, it
is not the most potent one. The ENU mutation frequency in cells at risk,
calculated per locus, per unit of applied dose, is roughly similar for
melanocyte precursors (in the spot test) and spermatogonial stem cells (in the
specific-locus test). MNU which, due to its high embryotoxicity, could be
tested only at a low dose, is clearly mutagenic, and dose extrapolations
indicate it to be more potent than ENU. NEC, though it could be tested at
higher molarities than ENU, is only weakly mutagenic. The spot test, in
addition to mutational data, also yields information on cytotoxicity (white
midventral spots), embryotoxicity, and teratogenicity. The toxicity and
teratogenicity findings parallel earlier results in the rat. For all endpoints
studied. ENU is more effective than NEC. Relative to MNU, ENU is less toxic,
less teratogenic, and less mutagenic in the spot test; but it is much more
carcinogenic (transplacentally) and more mutagenic in spermatogonia. We propose
that MNU is more effective in inducing gross chromosomal damage than is ENU,
while ENU induces relatively more gene mutations. The spot test scores both
types of mutational damage, while mostly the latter type is recovered from
spermatogonia.
|
Interview History
Dr. Russell was interviewed at her office at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory by Andrea Maestrejuan on January 18th-19th, 2007. The interview lasted for approximately 4.0 hours. The transcript was audit-edited by Dr. Maestrejuan and Dr. Meldrum and reviewed by Dr. Russell prior to its accession by the Oral History of Human Genetics Collection. The tape and transcript are in the public domain, by agreement with the oral author. The original recordings are in the Library holdings and are available under the regulations governing the use of permanent noncurrent records. Records relating to the interview are located in the offices of the Oral History of Human Genetics Project.
Access to the Interview
This oral history interview, in its audio and transcript forms, is held by the History & Special Collections Division. Those wishing to use the full videotaped version (which is available by appointment only) should contact: History & Special Collections Division, Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library, UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90095-1798. Phone: 310-825-6940.
Terms and Conditions of Use
By agreement with the oral author (interviewee), the contents of this interview are placed in the public domain and are made available for use by anyone who seeks to broaden the understanding of human genetics. However, users must fully and properly cite the source of quotations they excerpt from this interview (see Citation Information).
Citation Information
The preferred citation for excerpts from this interview is: Oral History Interview with Liane Bauch Russell, January 18th-19th, 2007, Oral History of Human Genetics Collection (Ms. Coll. no. 316), History & Special Collections Division, Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library, University of California, Los Angeles.
Acknowledgments
Support for the Oral History of Human Genetics Project has been provided by the National Human Genome Research Initiative, the National Science Foundation, the American Society of Human Genetics, and the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation.
|
I. Early and Family Life;
Leaving Austria for England and the United States
Q: It is January 18th, 2007, and I'm Andrea
Maestrejuan with Liane Brauch Russell for her interview for the UCLA Human
Genetics Oral History Project. We are at
her office at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I'll start at the very beginning and ask you
when and where you were born.
A: I was born in Vienna, Austria in August
1923 and lived there until March of 1938.
So, I spent my first almost fifteen years in Vienna.
Q: Tell me a little bit about your
parents. Were they Austrians as well?
A: Yes, they were. My father was a chemist. I think he was more what we would now call a
chemical engineer, but he was a chemist.
By the time I really became conscious of what he was doing, he was
mostly at that time representing a bunch of chemical companies, non-Austrian
companies. He was their representative
in Austria, particularly ICI -- Imperial Chemical Industries -- I remember was
one of the companies he represented.
Q: That was a British firm?
A: That was a British firm. That had something to do with my subsequent
life too. My mother was not a
professional, she was a housewife. A
little later, she had a strong interest in music. She sang and took singing lessons. And a little later in life, after we left
Austria, she studied to be a speech therapist, but she never really, I think,
did it professionally. So she was
essentially not a professional person.
My father always wanted me to be a
chemist, so I was brought up with that in the back of his mind. He loved the story of Madame Curie. He was always telling me that. Also, because I think he may have wanted a
boy, I was sort of brought up as a boy.
I eventually did have a brother, but I was very consciously raised away
from female frills.
In fact, I never wanted any dolls, I never
had any dolls. I had animals, I had lots
of animal toys, and I was very crazy about animals and very strongly convinced
that they should have the same rights as people. I know when I was a little kid and we went on
a hike, I would walk in front of everybody and get all the little critters out
of the way so people wouldn't step on them.
So that was my relation to animals.
I don't know whether I showed any
strong scientific interest as a child, but I know that my father told me lots
of stories of what scientists had done.
Our education, again, it was pretty rigorous. It was at a much higher level of learning at
an equivalent age than what they would get in school here. Elementary school went for four years, and
then you got into high school, so you got into high school at the age of ten,
ten or eleven.
Q: So did you start at the gymnasium
before you left for the United States?
A: Yes, I started there -- I'm not sure, I
would have been about ten, so it was probably around 1933. So my last -- I think I had five years,
almost five years at the gymnasium before I left. You know, that started with pretty rigorous
science and geography and all these things.
Q: What were your parents' expectations for
you, especially in a system in which you kind of have to know fairly early on
what educational --
A: I think my father wanted me to be
another Madame Curie. (laughs) I mean, he always dreamed that I would go
into some kind of science. But he didn't
push me in any way.
Q: Did he bring anything home in terms of
chemistry to demonstrate to you chemical principles or the kind of fun tricks
--
A: One thing I remember, and I don't know
why, is the term thixotropic,
and I don't know how you spell that. He
showed me that yogurt, when yogurt sits, it separates into sort of a fairly
hard phase, and the liquid, and then you stir it. And that's a physical
chemical property that's also exhibited, for instance, by certain suspensions
of sand, and so on. So I remember that
as a demonstration of something scientific.
Physical chemistry, I guess.
He always said that he wanted to
publish a book on the chemistry of cooking, the general principles of changes
in steak that occur, and so on.
Q: And did he help in that regard around
the house?
A: He was the worst cook in the world. Very
famous family story of how he tried to make scrambled eggs when my mother was
sick and ended up with a totally inedible scrambled egg. He was not good around the house.
Q: And had your father come from a
well-educated background?
A: No, I don't think they were
particularly well -- I mean, I think they were.
They had sort of normal middle-class education, but they were not in
science or anything like that. I don't
even know for sure what my grandfather did because he was dead when I was a
kid. He had died sometime before.
Q: Did you receive any music training?
A: Yes.
I had piano lessons. And we went
to virtually every single opera I know and a lot of concerts. The schools were very good that way. They had subscriptions at reduced prices for
students. You had to go certain days of
the week, but every Wednesday, or whatever, you could go to a Philharmonic
concert. So we had a lot of music.
Q: You said you have one sibling?
A: No, I have two. I had a sister who was two years younger than
me and a brother who was ten years younger than me. But neither of them went into science.
Q: Okay.
And did your sister get the same kind of Madame Curie --
A: She may not have gotten it because she
exhibited very early a strong artistic sense.
She was a wonderful -- she could do caricatures and all sorts of
things. She even caricatured people's
body motions and things like that. She
was very artistic, so I don't think she was exposed to that.
Q: And what did you think about getting
involved in the sciences? How much
thought did you give to --
A: To what it meant?
Q: Yeah, and taking the science track, or
the higher --
A: I didn't really think about it. I think I was too young to think what it
really meant in terms of what kind of a career you would have. I just never thought about that. I just sort of took it for granted that I'd
be taking a lot of science courses. And
I did not have any strong artistic abilities. I wrote well, but not like my
sister at all, so we started going on different tracks.
Q: And what kind of religious traditions
did you grow up with?
A: I grew up with very few. My father was a total nonbeliever and we
never went to anything. I think my
mother was wishing and sort of blaming him for bringing us up in a fairly
non-religious way. I don't really
remember going to any kind of religious services much.
But in school -- I don't know how much you
know about the political history of Austria, but around 1933 -- before 1933 we
had a Social Democratic
government, and in '33 there was a putsch
and a guy by the name of [Englebert] Dollfuss
became the chancellor, a short guy with a club foot. He was Christian Democrat,
and after the Christian Democrats took over the government, there was a lot of
religion introduced into the schools. I
think we had to have religious education in the schools.
Q: Primarily Catholicism?
A: I would say the great majority of the
kids were Catholic, but they would ask us at the beginning of the school year,
or maybe even the beginning of entry into whatever school we were in, we had to
all get up and say what religion we were.
There were two kinds of Protestants. I mean, it wasn't like Presbyterians and
Episcopalians and stuff, just two kinds.
They were HB and AB. AB stands
for Augsburger Bekenntnis and HB stands for Helvetische Bekenntnis. So that was Calvin[ism] vs. Luther[anism],
and those were the only two kinds of Protestants. Then there were the Catholics and they were
all just one. And then there were
Jews.
At that point -- I really don't know
the ratio, but the great majority, probably 70 percent, were Catholic. Maybe 25 percent were Protestant, one or the
other, and then 5 percent maybe Jewish.
Q: And after '33 was there a point in which
your parents had to declare a religion for their children?
A: Yes.
We had to -- I was Jewish, but I knew very little until we had religious
education in school. So that's how I
learned something. Also, my mother was
always very, I think, secretly religious, sort of almost resented that she
couldn't do it. So she would go to
relatives that had various observances.
I had a cousin to whose house we'd go for things like Passover and -- what
was the thing in the fall ?-- the harvest festival, Purim, and
things like that. That was really the extent
of my religious education: what I got in school and through that cousin, and
also some friends.
Q: So tell me what it was like to grow up
in Vienna in the late twenties and early thirties.
A: Well, it was physically wonderful. Also, the countryside was so close and so
beautiful. We would take long
vacations. The summer was pretty
long. The school year, I don't know when
it ended, there was like two or three months of summer vacation. We'd often rent a house in the country
somewhere, often fairly close to Vienna so my dad could commute. Sometimes if it was a little farther, he'd
spend the week in Vienna and then he came out for the weekends. So I grew very, very fond of the countryside.
He was quite a hiker, so even during
the winter we would go out into the Vienna woods and hike, or to some nearby
mountains that were just an hour away by train.
I was really brought up a lot in the outdoors, which explains something
about my later life, I think.
Q: In your circle of friends, were there
other kids who were -- particularly other girlfriends -- who were being kind of
trained to go to college and to do science?
A: Yes, at my schools. I had forgotten that, but a friend of mine
reminded me. I knew that my high school
- my gymnasium - was all female, but I couldn't remember about my elementary
school, believe it or not. I just
couldn't. But this friend said it was,
too. So I had a totally non-coed
education the whole time I was in Vienna.
I don't know whether that made -- but I think that was apparently more
or less the rule and the norm.
My mother was concerned that we should meet boys the proper way, so we had to
go to dancing school, and that's how we met boys, in dancing school and stuff
like that.
Q: And how well do you think your school in
Vienna trained you in the sciences?
A: I think my science courses were very
good. They didn't really train me. I don't think I even took any biology
classes. I remember chemistry and
physics. And I don't know if you can
call it a science, but I had a lot of geography, some of which was
geology. But I don't remember any
biology, so I was very excited when I had it later. I always looked down on botany because I
always thought that all you have to do is identify the flowers, which I didn't
think was very scientific, just to learn the names and to identify them. So I kind of looked down on that, which I'm
very sorry [about].
Q: Well, Vienna had been a large center for
medical training, the universities there.
How much thought did you give, before '38, to where you would go to the
university and what kind of things --
A: Not before I left. I think maybe if I had stayed on – because I
had three more years to go in high school, three and a half more years to
go. So in the first four and a half
years, I really -- it was very far from my mind what the university was going
to be like. Then, of course, things
started to really fall apart in terms of the political situation, which
influenced the social situation in the schools.
I didn't really have a great circle of
friends, and the friends that I did have, I had two very close girlfriends and
we would spend after school at each other's houses. I abandoned those pretty early. I broke up with them because they got a crush
on Clark Gable, and the whole conversation, day after day, would be -- and they
would collect his pictures and they'd collect all sorts of stuff from him. So I quit that, and those had been my closest
social friends. I think I spent a lot of
time not with any friends.
Q: What would you spend your time doing
then?
A: What would I do?
Q: Yeah.
A: Actually we got a lot of homework. The school day ended at one o'clock, so it
was a morning. It was eight to one, and
then we had tons of homework in the afternoon.
The other thing is -- I don't know whether it was in high school, but
certainly before that, we had a companion, a lady that would come in and took
us for walks or took us to museums, and so on.
We were supposed to speak French to her, so that was my French
training. And we had a succession of
these mademoiselles, I think they got a
pretty horrible life out of us. We
really sort of tortured them, (laughs) my sister and I. There was one we convinced we would like to
play cards in French, so we spent the afternoon playing cards.
Q: Well, during the thirties, things were
changing rapidly, just the rejection of the Social Democratic governments that
had taken control after World War I. And
then the rise of anti-Semitism and fascism in Europe. In what ways did your family experience these
political events? Was it talked about at
the kitchen table? How did anti-Semitism
enter your life?
A: My own [experience] was through school. I really don't know how my parents -- my
father, for instance, whether he encountered much in his business. I know that
he had working in his office a young man who had lived in one of the new
housing developments that was put up by the Social Democratic government, and
he was thought to be a Social Democrat. With the Nazis [arrival], he became a
prime Nazi. I mean, that kind of thing.
But really it didn't start until
they invaded, until they marched into Austria, and that was in March of
1938. That totally changed our
lives. In fact, I was the person who was
responsible for the fact, indirectly, that my family didn't leave that very day
because they had planned to take the car and drive to a place called Bratislava,
which is on the border of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, very close, only an
hour's drive from Vienna.
We were going to do that, just pick up and
go. But we couldn't because I had just
become old enough to have my own passport.
Before that I had been on my mother's passport, and I think at fourteen
you had to have your own passport. I had
applied for one and not got it. So here
I was without a passport and they couldn't leave. It turned out to be very, very fortuitous
because a lot of people who did that got picked up right at the border when
they were trying to get out.
So we stayed.
My dad's business was taken over by a guy who was an SS [Schutzstaffel]
man, and I very well remember when he came to the apartment. My dad was at work, and he came to the
apartment and rang the bell. I opened
the door and there was this -- he was about six foot four or something. This six foot four guy in a totally black
uniform came looking for my dad.
He turned out to be a pretty good guy. I don't know whether he was pretty good, but
he wanted to take over my dad's business without giving up the representational
foreign company, so he wanted to do well for my dad. I don't know how much of that was it, or how
much he was just a pretty decent guy.
But he fixed it up so he would take the business, he would take the
apartment, and in return he was arranging for our orderly exit. So we had about four or five weeks in which
to pack everything and decide what we were taking.
But, you know, there were strange
things. For instance, because of the book
burnings -- and we didn't have a fireplace, and we wanted to get rid of them.
We felt we had to get rid of the books that might incriminate us. I remember spending days flushing books down
the toilet, tearing out pages and flushing them down the toilet.
Q: What kind of books at that point were
going to incriminate you?
A: There were even fairly well-known
authors, like Thomas Mann
and Franz Werfel and
people that we wouldn't even consider political today. Then my dad had some -- I think my dad had
been a Social Democrat, so we had some of those books. But it's hard work tearing up books and
flushing them down the toilet.
(laughs)
It was scary, a really scary time, because
they would -- one of the favorite tricks they had was to get people whom they
wanted to humiliate to scrub the sidewalks.
So we would see them. I mean, we
were up on the third floor and look down, and they would drag some shopkeeper
out of his shop and made him scrub the sidewalks.
Q: Did you live in a particularly Jewish area
of Vienna?
A: No, not particularly so. It was in the Fourth District, and most of
the Jewish area was the Second District.
But my dad was also -- and his accountant, who was my mother's brother-in-law. He was married to her sister, and the two of
them, who worked in the same office, had to go and scrub something. But they didn't scrub the sidewalks. My dad said that was really insult added to
injury because they had to scrub a monument which he had hated all of his
life. He thought it was the ugliest
monument in Vienna and he had to scrub that.
Q: Do you remember which monument that was?
A: It was the guy -- Radetsky [Tegetthof
Denkmal], I think. I think so. The guy who won a naval battle when Austria
still owned Trieste as a seaport. And it
had the front ends of boats coming out of a big column, and the guy was on top of
it, and the bows of the boats came out of the side of this column. It was
really ugly, and that's the one he had to scrub.
Q: Well, clearly, your parents, it seems to
me, had been planning --
A: Yes, they had been.
Q: Was this something that they discussed?
A: No.
I think they must have discussed where we were going and also, mostly,
what we were going to take. I spent
those five weeks mostly packing, weeding out stuff. The irony of it was that nothing of what we
packed ever came. We went through five
weeks of packing, and it all ended up right in Vienna. My sister went back to Vienna in the fifties
at one point and visited the guy who had taken over my dad's company, and he
still had the same office that my dad had.
And there were the rugs that had been in our apartment, and the
pictures, everything. So it all stayed right there. We really just came over with what we
carried.
But we flew, which was very unusual in those
days, very unusual. We went to the
Vienna airport, which is about the size of this area right here. (chuckles)
I remember being patted down by a matron to make sure I didn't take
anything with me. Then the plane was not
pressurized, and I think the toilet had a hole in the bottom. My dad was determined to use it while we flew
out of Vienna. We flew to Prague, spent
only about a day there, I think, and then flew on to Brussels. My mother and the three kids, three of us,
stayed in Brussels for maybe four weeks or so, five weeks.
My dad went on to England and started getting
himself a job, and I think that was with the ICI, or maybe some other English
company that he represented. He got a
job, and it was a strange job. He was
running a little factory outside London, in a place that was very heavily
bombed later during the war. And it was
making a special quality of soot that could be used -- it's called carbon black. It was a much smaller particle than regular
soot. They used it in darkening the
surface of cement highways, and also heavily used in tires, rubber tires. So he ran this little factory. But he had a job before we came on and joined
him.
And then I went to school in England for
three years. Also, their education was
pretty high level.
Q: Was this in London?
A: It was in London to start with. I started that in the fall of '38, and it was
called the Southampstead High School, which was part of a set of schools for
girls which was supposed to emulate the standards for boys' schools. What was it called? The Girls' Public Day School Trust or
something. Anyhow, there were several
schools like that.
We lived fairly close to that, and on my way
to school there lived Sigmund Freud. So I saw him every day I walked to school,
he was out walking.
We stayed in London. See, in 1938 was when Munich happened. That's when [Neville] Chamberlain
went to Munich. At that time, before he
came back with “Peace in our Time”,
all the schools in England -- the whole country was convinced that war would
start before he went to Munich, so the schools all developed evacuation
plans. Our school took a vote among the
parents between about three or four places that they would like to evacuate to. I think we were supposed to evacuate to
Shrewsbury. Well, we didn't because
Chamberlain came back.
When war actually did start, I remember we walked
to school, my sister and I, with our little bitty suitcases. The whole school got walked by the
teachers. We walked to the nearest
railroad station, which was probably maybe ten minutes walk or something, and
all got on the first train, wherever it went.
They really didn’t know. The
school didn't know where it was --
Q: Had the bombing already started?
A: No, it hadn't. In fact, we were evacuated the day before the
war started, when it looked extremely imminent.
Our train -- they all went -- this particular railroad station served
the north of England, so we just went north.
The train stopped in a place called Northampton, and we all got
out. And then groups of girls, maybe a
dozen girls, would walk with a teacher and walk up and down the street, and the
teacher would knock on doors and ask people if they would take in some of the
kids to stay there. And the people were
just wonderful. Everybody took in kids.
My sister and I were always
together, which was a big comfort, but we were not alone. We were taken in by this family. Then the school tried to bring the kids
together for activities during the day, so the next day the whole school went
to this big indoor swimming pool. And it
was while I was in the swimming pool that war started, because I heard the big
P.A. system in the pool booming, reflecting from the surface of the water. So that's when war started.
We stayed in Northampton maybe a
couple of days, and then the school probably negotiated for a permanent
place. The permanent place turned out to
be Berkhamsted, which is in Hertfordshire.
So we went back south again, but not all the way to London. Berkhamsted isn't really all that far out of
London. There, they had evidently
negotiated for billets
before we walked up and down the street.
My sister and I ended up -- most
billets would take in one or maybe two of the kids. But the one we got taken into took in ten,
and it was a guy by the name of Sir Richard Cooper, who it turned out also ran
some kind of chemical company, I guess, but I'm not sure what. They had a big house on top of a hill, really
lovely, lots of yard, tennis courts, all sorts of things. So they took in the ten kids. I was the oldest, so I was supposed to help
keep discipline among the others. I
still correspond with one of the girls who was there.
Q: What happened to your brother? Where did he go?
A: My brother was too young to -- I think
he was five at the time. Yeah, he was
five. He was in some kind of -- I'm not
sure, but I know he also ended up in Berkhamsted, through whatever my parents
arranged. I don't think his whole school
went out, I'm not sure. But he was in
the local boys school. I'm trying to remember. It was called Berkhamsted School, something
like that. He was only five. He didn't know very much English. And they changed his name because the kids
couldn't pronounce it. His name was
B-r-a-u-c-h, and they changed it to Brooks, B-r-o-o-k-s. I know he had what they called a tuck box,
where the boys are allowed to keep their belongings. And his tuck box had “Brooks” on it.
Then eventually, after we'd been
there for a year or so, then my parents also moved there. But after my first year there, I went home to
London for summer holidays, and that's when the Blitz
started. So I experienced some of the bombings while I was in London for the
summer holidays.
Q: I want to take you back just a bit
because I find it remarkable that your parents kind of were prepared with the Anschluss
to leave. At what point did they start
discussing where they would go? How
early did they know that being even nominally Jewish in Vienna in the thirties
was going to be -- you were going to have to flee.
A: I think they did because of what was
happening in Germany already. Although
it wasn't really as bad in Germany as it got to be in Austria. I think Austria is a beautiful country, but
the people are much nastier. I mean, I
disliked the Germans, or did at that time, for various [reasons]of their
rigidness and so one, but they turned out not to be -- and the Viennese were
supposed to be gemütlich and they turned out
to be really bad, especially in the country.
Q: Had your parents decided then to go to
Britain? Or how did they decide where
they would try and --
A: I think they decided to go to Britain
because of my dad's [connections]-- he was pretty sure he could get a job, and
I think that's probably why they decided.
And then eventually they decided to come to the States. So we must have fairly early -- I'm not sure
of this, but you have to apply for a visa and you get on a long, long
list. I don't know at what point they
started to apply for a U.S. visa, but I know that we didn't get it until the
spring of '41. So then we left.
At that time, the U-boat
activity was at its peak, so we went with a convoy. We went in what had been a liner of the Cunard
Blue Star line, White Star? - maybe both.
Anyhow, they had all these fancy liners, like the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen
Mary. We went in one called the Andalucía Star, and it had been
converted into [supply ships]-- they went down to Argentina to pick up beef and
ship beef back to Britain, so that's what the Andalucía Star was doing.
But they went empty down to Argentina, so they took passengers. But that
was secondary. Their main function was
bringing back the beef.
We started out with a convoy, went as far as
Iceland with a convoy, and then broke from the convoy and went straight south. There was one place where the U-boat activity
was particularly hot, and that was off the coast where Africa sticks out to the
west, a place called Dakar. So when we
were off the coast of Dakar, the boat started going a zigzag course to avoid
being hit by a torpedo. But that was
really the only really warlike symptom of that particular trip.
Then we went down to Montevideo, Uruguay, and went
across and picked a U.S. ship up from Buenos Aires called the SS Brazil and went up to New York. I remember that as a fun trip. It was the first ocean trip I'd ever had, it
was wonderful.
|
II. College
Education in the US; Beginning Work at the Jackson Lab
Q: It always strikes me because, for this
generation of geneticists, they have these incredible stories of fleeing
various parts of Europe. So you flee
Austria, which has become unlivable, and then you get to England, and suddenly
bombs are starting to drop. You're then
on a route again, this circuitous route to get to the United States. How was this normal for you? What was normal for you?
A: I really didn't have any expectations
of what was normal, other than way back when I could have stayed on in
Austria. And I sure am glad I
didn't.
Q: Was that a choice of yours to stay
behind while your family went to England?
A: Oh, no.
No, there was never any question of us parting. I think we were always going to. Because, I mean, they could have gone without
me because I didn't have a passport. But
they always stayed together.
Q: How do you end up in New York?
A: I remember New York as -- we arrived in
June, and I immediately knew I was going to go to college. I was going to go to Hunter College, which is
one of the New York City colleges. There
are five of them. They were free to New
York City residents, which is the only kind of college I could have gone
to. I had to go to something that was
free or very cheap. And entered as a
freshman. I had to convince them that I
had enough educational background, since I had not graduated.
Oh, wait a moment. I should say that in England I finished the
end of high school, which was upper fifth, and took the school
certificate. I know they have a totally
different system of tests now, but the school certificate would have let me
enter any university in England, except for some of them you had to take extra
stuff. But I stayed on to what they call
the sixth form, which is essentially past normal high school education and will
be in lieu of -- it's like getting advanced standing, so I would have had
advanced standing if I had gone on to university in England.
I was in sixth form. There were just two of us who took
science. By that time, you had to decide
whether you were science or non-science, and there were probably ten or so that
were non-science. And the two of us who took
science had a wonderful time because we got virtually individual
instruction. Some of the science we
took, they did not have teachers for the high school, so we borrowed - I remember at least one - a man, from the
local boys school.
One thing I remember was when he had us use a
microscope, and what we looked at was the stone cells in pears. If you take a pear and you smear the meat of
the pear, make a thin smear on a slide, you see these absolutely beautiful
stone cells. They have geometric -- they're
like snowflakes almost. I was absolutely
thrilled, and they couldn't get me away from that microscope. So that was probably a turn-on.
Q: Had you made plans to go to the
university in England?
A: Yes.
I would have if we'd stayed on.
Q:
Which one?
A: It probably would depend on what I was
able to afford. To get into Oxford or
Cambridge, you had to take special exams and it cost a lot. But you could take scholarship exams and get
in without having to pay. So I think I
was working toward taking the scholarship exam but never got to the point. I do remember the school certificates, which
I took at the end of the last regular year.
They were pretty tough. But you
could decide at the -- you had to take a certain number of fixed things, like
English and algebra and that kind of thing.
But then you could take exams in electives,
and I decided at the last moment, never having had it, to take it in art. I hadn't had any art courses. But I didn't need it -- I could fail and it
wouldn't influence my getting in -- so I took the art. We had to do a still life, a person, and a
water color. I passed two out of three, I was very proud of myself. (laughter) I flunked the watercolor. (laughs)
Q: Well, clearly you have natural ability
then. Did you take any certificates in
science?
A: Oh, yeah. I would have had chemistry and physics. Again I don't think I would have had biology.
Q: And how did science education in Vienna
compare to the science education you were getting in England?
A: I think they were probably pretty
equivalent. And again my memory is so lousy on that. I don't remember much lab work in either
place. But then at Hunter -- because at
Hunter you didn't have to declare a major until your sophomore year, so I don't
know what I declared as a freshman. But
in my sophomore [year] I declared a chemistry major with a biology minor, which
would have -- at that time, I was convinced I wanted to go to med school, and
that would have been sort of equivalent to a premed. I don't think they called it premed, but if
you took the right courses, it would have been.
In my freshman year, I took a lot of
required courses, like civics and speech and lots of English, that kind of
thing. But I think I did have the
elementary chemistry course in my freshman year.
But then I had a very interesting thing
happen in one of my English courses. I had a teacher who decided that I could
write well, so she had me submit an essay to the Atlantic Monthly. They had a
national contest every year for college students, and you could send a story or
an essay or a poem. So I sent an essay,
and believe it or not, I got the national essay prize, which carried some money
with it. So for the first time, I had
some money. By today's standards it
would be nothing. I think it was like a
hundred dollars, but that would be equivalent to maybe five or six hundred
dollars now.
In the summer after my freshman year, I used
that money to take a vacation in New Hampshire by myself. I didn't take any of my family with me. That was my first time to get out in the
country, and I just loved New Hampshire, it was wonderful.
Because I won this prize, I was immediately
beseeched by a whole lot of agents who wanted to be my agent to see if I could
sell things to magazines. I remember visiting some of these magazine offices,
and I got really turned off by seeing the kind of world I would be living in if
that's what I went into. But I was
really tempted for a while after I got that prize.
Q: What was your essay on?
A: It was called "Refugee."
Q: And it was about your experience?
A: It was much about my experience, but
general thoughts.
Q: Well, again to go back just a little
bit. How well was your English when you
got to England to do well in school?
A: I had had one or two years, maybe a
year and a half of English in high school in Vienna, so I really knew a fair
amount. I remember the first class of
English I took in Vienna. We had to say “this
is, this is” probably a thousand times because there were all these -- two
kinds of s's and -- but I didn't have much trouble, and I always thought
English was very easy. Because the
language I'd had before was French, and that was not really in school, that was
-- so I don't remember having any problem with English.
Before I was admitted to Hunter, I
had to take all sorts of entrance tests because they didn't think school in
England was equivalent to school in the States, which is just the opposite. In
England they kept laughing about the level of college -- you know, college in
the United States was like high school in England kind of thing. Two different sets of opinions. So I had to
take all these entrance tests.
Q: And where did you fit in when you got to
Hunter? How well did your education
prepare you for American college?
A: I think it did, very well. I didn't have any difficulty really. I think
it had been more rigorous.
Oh, the other thing I meant to tell
you, the summer before I entered Hunter, while I was taking all these tests, I
had to take a job and the job I took was in a sample card factory. My sister and I -- sample cards, pieces of
fabric that they stick on cards for people. And they actually have people who
do that, who stick those samples on. We
traveled in a crowded subway in the heat wave in New York and go up to the
fifth floor of some downtown building and clock in and clock out. It was an education.
Q: You arrived in the United States in
1941, in the summer of 1941?
A: June I think it was.
Q: And in December then, the United States
gets attacked. What were you
thinking? Was this another situation
where you were going to have to leave?
A: No, I didn't think we'd have to leave,
but I thought here we go again, you know, kind of thing.
Q: And how difficult was it for your father
to find work in America?
A: He again, I think, worked for ICI, I
believe. They had some facilities in New
Jersey, so he worked there. And he
eventually started his own little business.
He started his own carbon black thing, and they made carbon black,
mostly for paints. They made suspensions
of various kinds.
Q: But you lived in New York all that time,
with your family?
A: I lived with my family -- yes, I think
all the time I went to college I lived with my family, but not always in the
same -- we started somewhere in midtown and moved up to Washington
Heights. So, yeah, I think it was the
whole time.
Now this is where my career really
started. I took some biology courses and
was very much turned on by an embryology course, with a wonderful, wonderful
teacher. One of the things that she did
a lot of was have us model things out of modeling clay. I remember the germ layers,
the ectoderm was blue and the mesoderm was red and the endoderm was
yellow. So we modeled the relations of
the germ layers in different stages of the embryo. I really liked that course a lot. I don’t
know what else did I took.
The chemistry was very
circumscribed. The first year was sort
of general inorganic, and the second year was – no, it was qualitative
analysis, quantitative analysis, organic and physical. So those were four years of chemistry.
The biology, I had comparative
anatomy and embryology. And then the
embryology was -- Hunter College is downtown, but it wasn't originally. Originally, there was an uptown campus, in
the Bronx. It was a real campus with
green grass and stuff. But it was taken
by the navy as a facility for some naval training, so Hunter had to give up
their campus, and so I moved downtown for my sophomore year. I normally wouldn't have moved till my junior
year. And it's a tall building, like
seven or eight or maybe more floors.
I remember after one of my
embryology classes, I went out to catch the elevator, and the elevator wasn't
coming. So I looked at the bulletin
board and started reading everything, and there was this announcement of the
Jackson Laboratory summer
course. So that elevator changed my
life. I wrote and was accepted. The summer after my sophomore year, I went to
Jackson.
Nowadays, everybody and his brother's got
summer courses, but this was really new.
There were very few places that had summer research courses, and it
turned out to be that Bill [William L. Russell]
was the one who had instituted that summer course. It was done in a wonderful way. Every student was assigned to a staff member
and sort of didn't act as a technician, but did an independent little
project.
In addition to that, you also had a
tutor. You went to a tutorial. The individual students went one-to-one with
a staff member, and they would read certain papers, or whatever.
Then the third thing they had was a technique
class, which all the students took, where the different staff members
demonstrated whatever techniques they were doing.
And this being in the summer of '43, still in
the war, so there weren't any male students.
So I was stuck in this totally -- half the college were all
females. The summer course at Jackson
turned out to be, not by rule, but we happened to be all females. There were
about fifteen or so summer students. We
lived in tents. They had platforms,
wooden platforms. The students were in
tents. And it was just down from the
lab. Are you familiar with Jackson at
all?
Q: No, I have not been to Jackson.
A: It's totally different now. You’d never recognize it. It was just one big brick building, and it
was in the woods, and the tents were in the woods, and we'd go up to the
lab. We could go up at night and work on
our experiment, or whatever.
That's when I got turned on. I
really got turned on. Because I remember
at one point looking down a microscope and seeing a fertilized mouse egg and
thinking, this fertilized mouse egg is going to be a whole mouse. Just less than three weeks from now it's
going to be a whole mouse. That was just
a really inspiring thought.
Q: What funding was available to go up to
Jackson? How did you afford to do that?
A: It was quite very reasonable because --
Q: You lived in tents.
A: We lived in tents, and we all ate --
they had one of the mouse caretakers, his wife cooked lunches for all fifteen
of us, or whatever. We really weren't
much cost to the laboratory, except the time that the staff members were doing
stuff. But I guess they got something
out of us, too, because some of the little projects turned out to be very
interesting.
The first year I paid what everybody
paid, which is not much. The second year
I got a scholarship, so the second year I went for free. I think the project I
did my second year had something to do with the anterior chamber of the eye was
supposed to not have any antibodies in it, so you didn't have any tissue
specificity. It didn't affect what you
put into the anterior chamber.
I remember putting -- and that really took a
lot, for me to be able to do that. I had to cut through the cornea and stick
something into the anterior chamber with a very fine pipette, and then see what
happened to it. That was one of my
projects.
The other project was a dopa
reaction of
pigment cell in a follicle and in a dermis.
You did frozen sections of a piece of skin, and they all started looking
like - [Dr. Russell draws] -- you know, like this. Take a wedge of skin and then cut -- on the
microscope we’d cut frozen sections and then you’d put them in the reagents -- anyhow,
I'd go to sleep, I'd close my eyes, and I'd see these things floating. Every night I'd see these things
floating. But it really -- I decided at
that point I really, really wanted to -- this is what I really wanted to do. I mean, not necessarily this, but --
Q: But experimental work?
A: Experimental work, yeah. So where do we
go from there? I still wanted to be an
M.D.
Q: Okay.
And I wanted to ask you -- you had mentioned that by this time you'd
decided to go to medical school. When
did you decide that you wanted to go to medical school?
A: That I didn't? Bill talked me out of it. (chuckles)
He said it would not be intellectually satisfying to me. I think nowadays people do -- a lot more
medical [students] do research, but not in those days. You became a practicing physician. So I wouldn't be doing research.
And the other thing, he thought
doctors were the most unscientific people in the world, the way they used
evidence. They had not had the kind of
training to really evaluate evidence.
Q: What was it about medicine that
attracted you to begin with?
A: Well, you know, for one thing, I just
wanted to help people. Like I had taken
the little critters out of the way, I was going to do the same thing for
people. I think that was mostly it, to
do something for people. In a way, that
was sort of on the edge of science, if it wasn't really science.
At one point, I know, I had this really crazy
idea. After I had won this essay prize
and I had been considering doing writing, I thought, hey, I could still do
that. Oh, I was also taking some
psychology courses, electives. I can
combine all this. I can go to medical
school and become a psychiatrist and then I can write about it. So I could combine all those things.
Q: Okay.
Hunter College, the history of the college was as a normal school; a
teaching school to train teachers.
A: That's right.
Q: How unusual was it for women at Hunter
to pursue more of a scientific -- ?
A: Well, the normal school was a long time
ago. By the time I went, it was really a
pretty high level college. I think also
city colleges -- there was Hunter College, City College [of New York], Brooklyn
College, and one other that I've forgotten.
Of the city colleges, I think it was the next to highest in academic
performance.
Q: Okay. I'm going to pop in a new
tape. Do you want to take a break?
A: I don't need to take a break, but at
some point I'm going to go to the ladies room.
Q: Do you want to do it now?
A: Yeah, I'll do it now.
Q: Okay.
After a brief pause, we're back.
One question I wanted to follow up on is, you had mentioned as a child
you were very concerned with animal welfare, and then at the Jackson Lab,
during the summer, you were able to do actual experimental work where you're
using animals in a completely different way.
How did you reconcile your --
A: Well, I didn't actually kill the
animals. The only thing was this
anterior chamber. I mean, they survived
and they were fine. But it was really
hard just to work around the eye, I think.
But the skin work, the dopa reaction.
We just took a very small piece of skin for that.
Q: And was Bill at that point, we he a
full-time staff member at the Jackson lab?
A: Yes, he was. Actually, that summer school had been started
in an informal way by C.C. [Clarence Cook] Little,
who had started the Jackson Lab. And it
started in the thirties, when he was doing a lot of raising money, and so
on. So as a favor to some of his donors,
he had their sons come and spend summer.
So that was sort of the beginning of the school. They didn't have any rigorous standards about
whom to admit. Then many of these people
became M.D.s, and so on.
But anyhow, when -- we called him
Prexy -- Prexy Little gave up the summer school, then Bill took it over and he
just totally changed it. He had all the
things that I mentioned, the tutors and their own experiments. I think even Prexy had -- the summer students
were mostly like technicians, they were mostly helping some staff member. But when I was there, you were not supposed
to be doing that, you were supposed to be doing your own little experiment.
That was so exciting also, to me, to think
that whatever I found, nobody would have known before if I hadn't found it out.
It was something totally new. It may be
very small, but…
Q: Okay.
And you had mentioned that you wanted to go into medicine for the
practical reason that you can help people.
And how aware were you that for people interested in science, you could
go on to graduate school and do nothing but this kind of academic-type
research-oriented lifestyle?
A: Well, I certainly became aware of that
when I was at Jackson, but I really wasn't thinking about it very much before
that. I was always thinking in terms of
after I get through college, I'll be in medical school. I wasn't really thinking about graduate
school, but I became very much aware of it, even my first summer.
Q: How much exposure did you have to
genetics before you got to the Jackson Lab?
A: You know, that's something else I
cannot remember. I'm going to have to
look up my course record, whether I had a genetics course at Hunter before I
went there or not. I must have had
some. Or whether it was just a segment
of some broader course.
Q: Certainly nothing remarkable.
A: No, nothing that in itself turned me
on, I think.
Q: You mentioned that you became very
interested in embryological work. What
kind of science was the Jackson Lab summer program teaching?
A: Well, the Jackson Lab, in itself, was
supposed to be a cancer research lab, but there were only, I think altogether
maybe only about eight staff members when my first summer course happened. I would say out of those, only maybe two or
three were very directly into cancer research.
Certainly, Bill wasn't. Bill had been -- his mentor in graduate
school was Sewall Wright,
and he became very much interested in phenotypic
variations within inbred strains. This
was the time when many of the now well-known inbred strains were being
created. Bill's work was essentially
directed towards finding out the causes of phenotypic variations in populations
which were genotypically
identical. So he was working at that
time with vertebral variations. I mean,
this was not because it was in itself that interesting, but because it was an
index of variability. So some strains
have five presacral vertebrae and others have six.
Then there are other strains that have a
certain ratio of five and six, that may have 80 percent five and 20 percent
six. Whether you breed from the animals that
have six or from the animals who have five, they would all give the same
distribution, regardless of what they themselves are. So the genotype fixes them, the causes of an
invariable character. I mean, you can
only have five or six, you can't have five point five or something. But the causes are distributed and the final
character is fixed. I'll have to draw
this. [Dr. Russell takes a sheet and draws]
Q: Okay.
A: So this may be a scale of say
prevertebral material. You just have a
continuum. You have the distribution of
the amount of prevertebral material, or whatever you call it. It's like that. But then there is a threshold that anybody
who has this much has got to have six, and everybody who has this much has got
to have five. So you have a continuous
variation, but you have a discontinuous final expression. Whether you breed from these guys, or whether
you breed from these guys, they're all going to have offspring with that same
distribution.
That's essentially the kind of system that he
was working with, and specifically looking into the prenatal environmental as
to where they got shifted relative to the threshold. They would still be there, but the threshold
would shift, this would still be the same.
In connection with that, he developed ovarian
transplants, which are still used now.
He originated the ovarian transplant so you can get from one -- but you
can't transplant from one strain to another because of the rejection
problem. But if you transplant from an
inbred strain to an F1 hybrid made from that strain, it will accept the ovary.
I know one of his papers was called “Pure
Strain Mice From Hybrid Mothers” [Russell WL, Hurst JG. Pure Strain Mice Born
to Hybrid Mothers Following Ovarian Transplantation. Proceedings
of the National Academies of Sciences of the United States of America.
1945; 31(9):267-73]. Then he had another
one, “Offspring of Unborn Mothers” [Russell WL, Douglass PM. Offspring from
Unborn Mothers. Proceedings of the
National Academies of Sciences of the United States of America. 1945;
31(12):402-4] because he would take embryonic ovaries and stick them into an
adult host.
This was really fascinating. He would get this ovary, which is absolutely
tiny. You have to wait until day
thirteen of embryonic development before you can tell an ovary from a
testis. And the ovary was almost
invisible. But he was very, very
nearsighted, so he could see things extremely well. He would put it into a watch glass and take
his glasses off and hold it right there and get it out of the watch glass. That was not cancer research.
Other people were working on what was then
called the "mammary factor," which turned out to be virus. The "milk factor"
they called it, which meant that certain strains develop mammary cancers, but
if you foster-nursed them on another strain, they didn't. That kind of thing. So that was getting partly into cancer
research, but the continuum of what people were working on.
Q: Sewall Wright is seen a population
geneticist now or a mathematical geneticist/ theoretical geneticist, and how
did Bill describe himself at that point? Was he a cancer geneticist?
A: He
described himself as a physiological geneticist, because -- yeah, very
much. In fact, Sewall Wright did that to
some extent, although that's not what he's known for. As you probably know, I ended up with Wright
also. He was a very non-human
person. I mean, he was that much of a
genius that he was really unable to relate socially with ordinary people.
|
III. Graduate Studies
and Thesis Work
Q: Okay.
Well, why don't you tell me about how you go about deciding going to
graduate school and why you choose the University of Chicago.
A; I decided, probably after my second
summer at Jackson, that that was what I was going to do. I finished college in three and a half years
because I had taken one summer semester to get my credits together, so I
graduated in the middle of the year instead of at the end. I graduated in January of '45, and it was
before that that I had decided to go to -- it must have been probably in '44,
which was after my second year.
I applied to Curt Stern at
Rochester and Sewall Wright, and who was the third person? Herman [B.] Chase
maybe, I don't know, who was at Brown [University]. I know I applied three places. And then I got accepted to all of them, so I
had -- I think I got in again because Bill had been with Sewall, but I decided
to go with Sewall.
It really didn't do that much for me
because I finally started at [University of] Chicago in the fall of '45. The very first thing that happened is -- have
you ever heard of [Herluf H.] Strandskov? He was a human geneticist at Chicago. He was the
human geneticist in the department. I
think he had been a student of Wright's.
But he came up to me and he said, "I think you'll find that Sewall
is not going to be too much help in practical things." So he found space for me. He found a desk. He did everything. Because Sewall didn't really much know who
his students were. He was very much
detached.
But his courses were really amazing. Although I didn't really absorb as much as I
would have liked to from his biometry course when he had all his statistical
stuff. I don't think I myself would have
gravitated into that area. It was too
detached from real things. I wanted to
do the type of work where I could test the hypothesis I had, and that's hard to
do in quantitative genetics, I think.
You just go and look what somebody else has found.
But his physiological genetics course was
very, very fascinating. I think there
were three -- he taught a basic genetics, physiological. I still have my notes from those
courses. In fact, Bill paid me to write
notes and send them to him because it was thirteen years since he'd taken those
courses, so he really wanted to know.
Q: Did you know of Curt Stern's reputation
before?
A: I knew him slightly from -- I mean, not
very deeply or anything. I really liked
him, and I think I would have very much liked being his student. Did you ever meet him?
Q: No.
A: He was really a great person.
Q: Yeah, he's clearly very important to the
history of human genetics, and genetics in general.
A: Yeah. I don't know when he died, but it
was some time ago.
Q: Right.
Before we go into how you got on to the content for your dissertation --
I haven't looked at it, but I know what the title is -- how aware were you,
being at the University of Chicago, about what was going on with the Manhattan
Project?
A: I was aware of it because Bill had a
consultantship at -- was it Rochester or Buffalo? I don't know.
It was with somebody called Don [Donald R.] Charles. Don Charles was a mouse geneticist, and he
had a contract from Atomic Energy Commission I
guess it was at the time -- oh, no, it was the predecessor, so it was the
Manhattan Project. His contract was to
sort of basically do radiation effects, mostly clastogeneic
effects, chromosome breakage, and Bill was a consultant to that project. So while he was still at Jackson, he would
several times go to -- I think it was Rochester, and consult with Don
Charles.
So he knew what it was. I wasn't too aware, other than the fact that
he was going to Rochester to consult somebody.
I wasn't too sure what the guy was doing. And anyhow, it wasn't
secret. I mean, the work he was doing
was not secret, because there had been other people had been doing radiation
stuff before. Paula Hertwig in
Germany and George [D.] Snell had
been doing it. Of course, [Hermann J.]
Muller
had been -- so the fact that people were doing radiation work wasn't
secret. I think what was secret was who
was funding it and why.
But that's not how -- Don Charles was not our
connection to Oak Ridge at all. I didn't
know too much. And Bill was looking for
a job, so Oak Ridge was one of the places that offered. His condition for a job was that I should
also be able to work wherever he worked.
So several of his offers did not offer that. I know Brown was one of the places he would
have gone to if he hadn't made that condition, but they had nepotism
rulings. So when he interviewed here
[Oak Ridge Laboratory], that was the first thing - they said, "Oh, yes, no
problem." So we almost
automatically ended up here.
I think it was the second time I had had an
indirect influence on fate, because the first time was my passport, and then
the fact that he wouldn't take any other job.
He very likely would have ended up somewhere else.
Q: Yeah.
Who did you end up finishing your Ph.D. with?
A: That has a very interesting story. I left Chicago after two years. I had only gone there from '45-'46 and then
'46-'47, and I'd finished all the course requirements for the Ph.D. I had not really gotten started on a thesis
because Dr. Wright, being totally out of this world, didn't know that what he
was assigning me was not a possible project.
He had been interested for some years - mostly via his students because
he himself never got into the lab - so he had been interested in physiological
genetics of pigments.
Bill's thesis had been on the dopa reaction
in guinea pigs, which Sewall Wright had
done all the analysis of the genetics of pigmentation essentially from the
phenotypes. Bill did this dopa reaction,
and he did it in frozen sections, which is a project I later had at Jackson. Because
it was very hard to do in solution. Dr.
Wright wanted him to do it in solution, and then Bill thought he could do it in
the frozen sections, so that ended up being his dissertation.
By the time I got there, Dr. Wright was very
disappointed that he hadn't had any students in the interim who really were
able to do the biochemistry of melanin formation. Nobody could do it at that time, and I was
certainly not an organic chemist, so I was very frustrated. I sort of started out in various ways and
nothing really worked. By the time I left Chicago -- I mean, I was a student
still, but I wasn't in residence -- I had done all my course work and really
not started my thesis at all.
After I got here, I was going to do my thesis
-- I had something I later picked up again, but then went off on a sidetrack
for my thesis. What I was going to do
was to get somatic mutations. Bill's
project was essentially to do the germ line mutations from radiation, and I
wanted to do somatic mutations on the same loci, which meant that you had to
irradiate embryos in utero while the pigments also were being -- you know, at
birth, migrating and multiplying, and so on.
I had to do this preliminary work to find out
what would be the best stage because you want to do it when there are enough
pigment -- well, when there are a few pigment cells so you can end up with a
big spot from the one that you mutated, it's going to multiply and make a big
spot, so you really, on the one hand, want to do it when there are very
few. On the other hand, you want to have
a large enough population so you can do some quantitative -- because otherwise,
if you do it from one cell, every embryo essentially becomes one. But if you do it from an embryo that has two
hundred cells, then you're essentially doing mutagenesis
in a population of two hundred. So you
want to find something in between.
I was doing all this preliminary work simply
to find the right stage for the right kind of spot. And in the course of doing that, I'd come up
with all these abnormal malformed embryos.
So I digressed away from my original project, which I came back to again
ten years later and did the teratogenesis
of radiation. So that's the cause of my
thesis, and it turned out that nobody had done anything systematic. People knew that radiation caused
malformations in embryos, but I essentially decided to outline the different
critical periods to possibly relate it to normal events that were going on at
the time.
It became quite a big thesis, and for the
next maybe three or four years, I stayed with it, various aspects, after the
thesis was done, and then went back into genetics that I never really had
wanted to leave, but it was a good thesis project because it was a sure
thing. And it was something that Dr.
Wright did know something about because he had been interested in
malformations, of other people's creations.
He was actually a good long distance advisor essentially, telling me
what really was a critical question, and things like that. But I never saw more of him than maybe twice
a year. He'd come here, and I might go
up there.
I had started that shortly after I came to
Oak Ridge, which was late in '47, and I finished it in '49, so it was a two
year research project. Consequently, I
never did a postdoc, because I was already working.
Q: In those early years, how common would
it have been to do a postdoc in genetics?
A: Not very common, not very common at
all. Have you found that also with other
people?
Q: Yes.
For this period, postdocs were [unusual], but I worked on another
project that interviewed people who got their Ph.D.'s in the eighties and
nineties, and one postdoc is mandatory and to have a second one is not unusual
before getting an appointment.
A: And it's really too bad in a way. I mean, I wouldn't have been able to do a
postdoc. But in a way, I missed having
had that experience.
Q: What do you see as the advantages of
having a postdoc?
A: Well, because you broaden your
experience so much, particularly in the way of techniques. I mean, techniques are so important now, and
were much less so then.
|
IV.
Work with Radiation and Embryology; Chromosome Research at Oak Ridge Lab in
Mice and Drosophila
Q: What techniques could -- let me ask
another question first. What was driving
your science? Was it just circumstance
that you had a situation in which you could create -- to look at the effects of
radiation on embryos or embryological development? Was it an interest in embryology? Was it an interest in basic genetic
principles. What was it that was driving
your interest at this point?
A: Well, at that point, for my thesis,
which was not typical of my later work at all, it was certainly the fact of
relating it to events of normal embryology.
Very soon, it became a very practical thing because of the hazard, the
human hazard. Several of my papers were
devoted to that and trying to find out also, just in library research, what
kind of doses people were normally getting in medical practice for diagnostic
radiation, and what type of precautions were taken.
Then I came up with this fourteen day rule
that if you -- and that roused the ire of the radiological community. The fourteen day rule essentially says that
if a patient has to have diagnostic radiation that's not urgent, that's not an
emergency or anything like that, and you can time it, you should time it in
relation to the menstrual cycle and give the radiation at a time when there's no
possibility of -- in other words, the first half of the cycle, before
ovulation, when you don't have the possibility of an unsuspected
pregnancy. As soon as I published that,
I was horribly attacked by all radiologists, I think mostly because they were
worried about being sued. I'll get you
that publication.
Q: If this is [the publication] from Radiology, I may have it here with
me. Okay. Yes, I do have a copy of that one. [Russell, LB and Russell, WL. Radiation
hazards to the embryo and fetus. Radiology.
1952;58(3):369-77.]
A: You may not have all these letters to
the editor.
Q: Oh, no.
I don't have the letters to the editor.
A: Somebody by the name of
Chamberlain? No, it was President of the
Radiologists of America or something.
Richard [H.] Chamberlain. There
were several letters of all of the -- anyhow, you're welcome to read them.
[handing Maestrejuan the letters]
Q: Okay.
Well, who was your audience at this point? Who did you think your audience was?
A: Well, the funding audience was the AEC
[Atomic Energy Commission]. At that
point, it was the medical community.
Q: Okay.
And in this particular article, you were very explicit that, okay, these
are experimental results from mice, but this is what it would look like in
humans. And you made the direct
connection on how applicable this would be for human medicine. What was motivating to make that connection
between the mouse and basic genetic principles in mammals?
A: This wasn't really genetics. This was teratogenesis. I found one case in the literature. There were lots of human medical publications
about various odd babies after radiation, but the time of radiation was usually
not very well known or so, it wasn't published.
I found one paper where it was exactly known when conception occurred
because the woman was married to a guy who was in the army, and he came home
for one weekend, or something like that.
So it was a very exact timing of conception, and the radiation too. And the abnormality, which was an upper arm
abnormality, was exactly like it would been in the mouse at a certain
stage. So there was a stage comparison.
Then -- I don't know if that's in
this paper somewhere. No, it must be
somewhere else. Somebody had done a
mouse and human comparison of embryonic events.
Q: I think you cite that in that work.
A: I have it somewhere. So when you do that, then you can tell when
the major organogenesis
stages would be in humans. In the mouse,
they're between day six and thirteen. In
humans, it's from week two to week seven or something. It gives you a very good cross-reference
point. The stages that I was never very
happy with knowing more about were the post major organogenesis ones, when they
were much more subtle things than gross malformation.
I did come back -- this was my main
excursion into teratogenesis, but later on I came back to the area via
developing a test for teratogenic effects that would pick up very small doses
of either radiation or chemicals. It was
based on what I drew for you, what I call the homeotic shifts. I'm not sure, I'll have to find out what
publications, but you may already have those.
I just really loved it, but I didn't do much
more with it, other than publishing it as a relatively easy method. What it was based on was, again, the axial
formula, so many thoracic, so many lumbar, so many sacral, and also things like
the number of components of the sternum.
In the mouse, you have five little bones, and then you have the base of
the sternum, and a number of ribs. So
easily quantitatable, very easily countable changes.
If you pick the strains that straddle a
threshold like that, then very small disturbances would push them one side or
the other of the threshold, and you count the number of the vertebrae and you
see if you've had a small disturbance. I
call that the homeotic shift method, and I have about four or five papers on
that. But that was my only subsequent
way back into embryology. Except, of
course, the spot test
which is also involved in embryosis, but it's purely genetic.
Q: At this point in the late forties, how
were you identifying yourself? By the
1950s, say. What kind of scientist were
you?
A: A geneticist. As I said, the only other time I got into
teratogenesis was probably in the late fifties or early sixties when I did the
homeotic shift.
The other thing that I profited from
was the mutations that were being induced as part of the mutagenesis
tests. Bill's work was essentially
counting the mutations and finding things that affected the rate of induction, whereas
I grabbed them. So I was very fortunate
that he had decided to keep propagating them as stock, not just counting them
but setting up -- so by the time I got into sort of milking the results of his
labors, there were a lot of stocks to work with.
I think I got back in a big way into genetics
when I started doing the complementation tests
with the mutations, because, as you probably know, you probably didn't read too
much of his stuff, but he was using the specific locus test
and it was essentially using seven loci, not for their own sake, but because
they were a good indicator, an easy indicator of mutation rates. But this resulted in our having multiple
mutations at any one locus. They may
have twenty or thirty at the B locus, the may have fifty or sixty at some other
locus. So that gives you a lot of good
genetic material to do complementation
with.
And I milked his weird cases in other ways. For instance, a lot of the X-chromosome work
I did came out of that. And really, the
best thing that ever happened to me was finding the variegated mutants. I would say in the genetic area, a lot of
things that I did had a common interest, and that was in mosaicism
coming from different directions.
And you know, the book that I edited, Genetic Mosaics and Chimeras? [Russell, Liane
B., ed. Genetic mosaics and chimeras in
mammals. New York: Plenum Press,
1978.] They had found -- I've forgotten in what order now, but anyhow, that
some of the specific locus mutations were not whole-body, but they were mottled
or variegated. So those are the ones I
picked up for special interest.
Q: And why did you choose those?
A: Why did I do that?
Q: Yes.
A: Because they were unusual and
potentially of genetic interest. I was
very much, at that time -- I had mentioned Ed [Edward B.] Lewis. I thought he was great, and he had done quite
a bit of work on position effect on
Drosophila,
and he had a review on position effect, which I read every word of and I
thought it was great.
But anyway, I was pretty sure that
there was some kind of position effect because in Drosophila, if you have heterochromatin
next to a gene, it makes the -- not just next, but near -- it will make the
action of that gene, quote, “uncertain.”
So I thought that was what was happening here.
Well, I soon found -- and they're
not that common. To start with we had
one, and then a year later we had two more.
I think eventually, even over all the years, we may have had twenty,
which is not a big number. Because those
aberrations turn out not to be as frequent.
What we found was that they were -- the females were the only ones that
were the variegated. And also, the
females were what we then called semi-sterile.
It means the litter size was roughly half of what it would have
been. So immediately the suspicion is
[that] they carry a translocation. Of course, this is before the days of very
good cytogenetics
but we did pretty soon get the cytogenetics, too. So, genetically, it was very clear they were
translocations, and they were translocations of an X chromosome to an autosome. I really don't know how much you want me to
talk about this.
Q: Yes, continue.
A: I've got it all written down.
Q: Right.
Well, one question I wanted to ask before, and I'll just insert now,
because you're discussing really the Science
article in '61.
A: Was it '59? Something like that, yeah.
Q: And we'll get back to that, because you
and Mary [F.] Lyon
start to at the same time simultaneously develop a hypothesis on the --
A: See, because I came from the side of
the translocation.
Q: Okay.
A: And she didn't. She came from some sex-linked mutations.
Q: Well, what genetic tools did you have to
work with at this point?
A: Just making crosses. Just really progeny where the translocation
bearing females were variegated, but the translocation bearing males were
not. Then we found -- this is something
else that I was working on at the same time was spontaneous and induced losses
of sex chromosomes. Once in a while we
would find a female that had a translocation but was not variegated, and she would turn out to have lost one of her sex
chromosomes. So the only X chromosome
she had would be in two pieces, each one attached to the --
[moving
the microphone]
Q: Continue.
A: And whatever the marker gene was wild type
allele
of that particular marker gene, for instance, brown or pink or whatever, that
piece of autosome was attached to a piece of X.
But it was only when she had another X that she was variegated, and when
she lacked another X, or when it was a male that only had that one broken X,
was also not variegated.
So from that, I came at it from a very
different way from Mary [Lyon]. I said
that one X was needed to do its job, and the other X was surplus and was able
to be on and off and induced the position effect, and I called it the position
effect, if the X was inducing a position effect.
Q: And what I was reading is it would be
more of an activation of one of the X's, and she described it as inactivation
of one of the X's. Or is that too simplistic?
A: Well, I essentially said one X is
needed to be active, and the rest of them are junk, I mean they're not
needed. So that immediately brought the
idea that the reason that it was variegated was because in some cells the one X
was doing its job, and in others, the other.
In the cells where the broken X was active, then that wild type marker
was also active, and in the other cells, the intact X was active. So the broken X was not, and the piece of
autosome attached to it also was not, so it was off, and that's what gave you
the variegation.
Q: Okay.
And were you aware of Lyon, what she was doing in Britain at that point?
A: No, because she was essentially -- the
whole XO thing
started here with the scurfy
back in -- I don't know, but two or three years before that. That was
interesting because scurfy was a mutation which was not one of our markers, it
turned out to be an X- chromatization. At the time we didn't publish it,
otherwise we would have published the first X-linked mutation, but we didn't.
Q: And why didn't you?
A: Because Bill was lazy, or busy or
something. But scurfy ended up with the
same situation. Once in a while you'd
find only the males with scurfy. I'm
trying to remember - I know that Bill
was doing ovarian translocation at that time to rule out one of the
possibilities, and the upshot was that we found the XO, because of the
situation in the scurfy strain where you sometimes got the wild type females,
and they turned out to be XOs.
So that was published. Bill published that, and at the same time we
published two papers together. The other
one, I was also doing it with tabby,
which was a well known X-linked mutation.
Then shortly thereafter, we found XXYs, and they would be variegated if
they had the translocations or if they had whatever the mutant was.
Because if it had been like Drosophila, it
would have been different because, in Drosophila, the Y chromosome will
suppress the variegation. Because I had
been reading the E.B. Lewis stuff, that's why I was pretty sure to start with
that there was something to do with the Y, but then when we had the
translocation both as XOs and as XXYs, the XXYs were much later -- not much
later, maybe a year later, it turned out that it wasn't whether or not you had
a Y but it was how many Xs you had that made a difference, so it wasn't like
Drosophila. The Y didn't have anything
to do with it.
Q: So Drosophila had been used as a model
organism for genetics for quite a long time.
How much of the understanding of genetics based on the Drosophila model
influenced the way you thought genetics would work?
A: It did. Immediately, we found the XOs
and everything. It turned out that sex
determination was not like
Drosophila. In Drosophila, it's the ratio of autosomes to X chromosomes, and
that's how I was conditioned to think.
But it wasn't. It was whether you
had a Y or not. So the Y determination
shattered the parallelism with Drosophila, and so did the position effect. The Y had nothing to do with whether or not
you got the position effect.
Q: And how long did it take you to figure
this out? Or was it just that when you
identified the first XXY mouse that you realized that things were different
than flies?
A: No, I think it was even before we had
the XXY, when we just had the XO and XX that we figured it out. But, you know, the relation to the human --
because just about that time Charlie [Charles
E.] Ford and others were doing XO humans. But in the humans, it was all cytogenetic
evidence. There was no genetic evidence. In the mouse, we had the genetic and the cytogenetic, so I think that was
a nice clincher. I mean, that showed
when modeled organisms are important.
Also, human XOs are non-fertile, but mouse XOs are, so you're able to do
genetic work with them.
Q: And where were you picking up the
cytogenetics techniques?
A: We had a cytogeneticist by the name of Ernie
[Ernest H.Yi] Chu, who is still at [University of] Michigan, I think. He was pretty good. I think that the mouse cytogenetics was never
as good as the humans because the mouse chromosomes are all acrocentric, so
before the banding came in you really could not identify individual mouse
chromosomes. They make a continuum in
length, and the centromeres are
all at the end, or near the end. And
humans, you could identify individual chromosomes. So I think the mouse cytogenetics was lagging
at the time, but it certainly was good enough to tell whether you had an X or
not.
Q: So the model here at Oak Ridge, rather
than to do postdocs, was to bring in people with different expertise?
A: Yes, it was. And Dr. [Alexander] Hollaender
was a great genius that way. He was the
division director. He was the one that
hired Bill, but he was here not very long before Bill came, I think, maybe a
year or so. He wanted to make the
division very genetics-oriented. Before
he came here, whoever had been in charge of biology, it was mostly radiation
effects on different organ systems, that kind of stuff.
But Hollaender wanted to make a genetics
division. He built up some really great
young people. Drosophila, Neurospora,
maize. He had all sorts of organisms
represented. He also went out and
started to become international. He got
our group, our division people, invited along to foreign meetings, or to take
sabbaticals abroad. And then he would
bring in foreign investigators for a year or two years. He brought in a great many people for short
durations. I think that's where we got
our broad experience. Bill and I never
got a sabbatical because we had to stay with the -- there's no one else has a
mouse colony like that size. But we had
a lot of people come in.
Q: Okay.
I think we're going to get back to that topic, but I wanted to -- just
because this is an interesting issue for priority debates in science, yours and
Lyon's work come out the same year. One
comes out in Nature -- they're
simultaneous. How do you account for the
fact that you basically came up with the same conclusions at the same time
working completely independently of each other?
A: And working totally different projects,
yeah. It's maybe because she had got at
that time the fact that sex-linked mutants came to be known. There really weren't any sex-linked mutants
in a mouse. Well, the scurfy was there,
but it hadn't been published, and it wasn't a good thing to work with because
it was so lethal. Tabby was really the
one that became a good mutant to work with.
That wasn't very long, and then the whole XO situation, which we
published, but that she made use of.
Q: And why was she able to make use of it?
A: Just that it had been published.
Q: How did you respond that this idea now
is known as the Lyon --
A: It's associated with her.
Q: The Lyon Hypothesis,
yeah.
A: Well, I think it was because I didn't
capitalize on it, and I think that was -- I was not very good at publicizing
myself. And also, I really didn’t do all
the work I could have done on it because of other things in my life. My kids
were like eight and ten, and I had a lot of things that involved them. We were talking last night. I was never able
to become single focused on something because I was too diffused, and I didn't
do as much work as I could have.
Q: And what do you think the implications
have been for you that it's not the Russell-Lyon Hypothesis or the Russell
Hypothesis?
A: It did bother me some, but it didn't
really make me sick or anything. It did
bother me.
|
V.
Relationship with husband William Russell and his work
Q: Okay.
Well, one area I want to kind of go back to so that we can talk more
about your work here at Oak Ridge is this relationship you have with your
husband and just to get the timing of that down a little bit. So you're an undergraduate at Hunter when you
go to Jackson Lab, and he's an instructor at the summer program.
A: Yeah, he headed it up more or less.
Q: And at what point did this relationship
become more than just mentor-student?
A: Well, I don't know how much you want to
go into my private life, but he was married and he had, at that time -- by the time I got there in '43 he had two
kids, eventually had four. So it took quite a bit of personal things before he
finally got divorced in '47, and then we married.
Q: So at the University of Chicago you were
still going back to the Jackson Labs, or you were maintaining a relationship?
A: Yes.
When I was at Chicago, in '45, and then in '46, I went back to Jackson,
but this time not as a student. I had a
summer job as a technician. I was finishing up at the time the pigment work,
the frozen section stuff that I originally started when I first met him. And that was my first publication,
actually. [Russell LB, Russell WL. A
Study of the Physiological genetics of Coat Color in the Mouse by Means of the
Dopa Reaction in Frozen Sections of Skin. Genetics.
1948; 33(3):237-62.]
So I worked on that the summer of
'46, then went back to Chicago for my second year. By '47 I was no longer welcome at the lab
because at that time the divorce was in progress. I was not even allowed to show my face at the
Jackson Lab. Bill found that the Jackson
Lab had use of another facility where they were doing some dog psychology. It was maybe fifteen miles from the lab and
he found they were willing to give me a room in there where I could at least
write. So I wrote up some of that
pigment paper there.
Then we got married in September of
'47, and he knew before that -- before that he knew, early in '47, that he
would have to leave the lab. So that's
when he started looking for jobs.
Q: Because the lab was going through
financial difficulties or because --
A: No, because they just didn't want him
to work there because of the divorce.
Q: His first wife was also a staff
scientist?
A: She was on the staff, yeah. I mean, that's why -- if she hadn't been,
they probably wouldn't have cared less, but because she was working there --
Q: And after you had done your course --
this kind of corresponds with the timing that you completed your course
work. Was there a thought that you
wouldn't complete a Ph.D.?
A: I'm sorry, was there what?
Q: Did you think that you might not
complete a Ph.D.?
A: I think I was very much directed toward
completing it, and I think that was one reason that he wanted to make sure that
I would be able to get into the lab wherever he had a job. I actually was an employee when I did my
thesis, which was double-dipping. I
think I got two thousand dollars a year was my salary. So while I was doing my thesis research, I
was actually an employee. My
publications are ORNL publications.
Q: Okay.
And Bill did not have any other job offers that would include you with
some kind of --
A: I think there were three job offers he
had, and this was the only one that would have included me.
Q: Okay.
At that point, how did you see your role as a professional scientist
when you got here?
A: Well, his job was set up on the idea
that the Atomic Energy Commission wanted to know something about the genetic
effects of radiation on human populations. So that was the rationale for his job. So it was very much directed from the
beginning toward developing good mutagenesis tests, and then actually measuring
radiation effects on mutations.
He took it very much from a point of
view of exploring the factors that influenced mutation rate and mutation type. He wanted to explore the factors. He was not so much interested in getting an
absolute mutation rate because it would have been meaningful to get that for seven
loci so he was using the seven loci essentially as a system that he can use on
two sides of a comparison -- males versus females or high dose rate versus low
dose rate. It was a good objective
endpoint that you could use to measure the effects of different factors, both
physical and biological variables.
That was, I think, the main
direction of his work, which I participated in mostly just to know what he was
doing, and so on. But from the
beginning, I was always doing different things.
First the teratogenesis, and then I got into somatic mutations and ended
up developing the spot test. And then
essentially using the mutations that he had generated for genetic work. I think the way we worked together was that
we were using the same system, taking different parts out of it for what we
were finding out.
Q: Okay.
And this was because the specific locus test basically was a project in
which to generate a large population from which to study mutations. Where was that developed, and how --
A: You mean the test?
Q: Yeah.
Where did the idea come from?
A: Oh, he developed that.
Q: While he was still at Jackson or…?
A: No, when he first was hired. Dr. Hollaender wanted to very much to have
him consult in developing systems, because it was going to be a big expansive
thing. So his main consultants were H.J.
Muller and Sewall Wright, and they both had very different ideas of what they
thought should be done. H.J. Muller
wanted essentially -- what's the Drosophila test for mutagenesis? I've forgotten the name of it.
Q: Yeah, I know what you're talking about.
A: Anyhow, it's essentially measuring
inductions of recessives. XL -- not it's
not the XL – I've forgotten what it is.
You take a piece of chromosome, that is marked by an inversion, I think, and then you measure the
recessives in that chromosome.
It involved making backcrosses. You can't get the recessives in the first
generation. You have to have the
individual that carries the recessive generate another one and back cross them
to pick up a recessive. It involved
three crosses. Of course, we did all the
bookkeeping and keeping track and all that kind of stuff. So that wasn't very attractive to Bill.
What Dr. Wright wanted him to do was
essentially pick up dominance, just anything, just look at the first generation
and whatever looked different, or whatever was small, or didn't live, and
measure dominance that way. Not at any
specific chromosome region or any particular locus, but any dominant you could think
of. That wasn't attractive to him
because it was very dependent on the acuity of the observer. It was not an objective thing.
Then he developed the specific locus
tests on his own. So he didn't go with
either of the advisors.
Q: Although from what I understand from the
history is that Muller was concerned that the scale wasn't big enough to catch
enough mutations.
A: What wasn't big enough?
Q: The scale of the project. And that then ultimately you scaled the
number of readings up quite a bit.
A: Yes, and the thing is that on a per
locus basis, the mouse turned out to be more mutable than Drosophila, so the
calculations that were made on the Drosophila rate were, in a sense,
pessimistic in terms of what you could get with a certain number of
animals. But the attractiveness of the
specific locus test was that you didn't have to go farther than F1
[generation], you take them all in F1.
So from a point of view of laboriousness, you didn't have to keep track
of three generations of two and a back cross.
You didn't have to do that.
I think he probably was instrumental
in trying to get the scale enlarged because originally -- I wish you could see
our original building, but it was three stories high. Originally, we had the first floor. This was at Y-12 [National Security Complex]. It was a building that was built during the
war for something and never used for whatever it was built for, so it's just
chock full of this machinery, huge things that were so big that they had to
build up a little pedestal of extra concrete on the floor. In order to get into the building, not only
did they have to get all the machinery out, but they had to drill off all these
raised places. In fact, they finally
gave up on that and decided instead of getting them off, they would build up
the rest of the floor to the same level, which meant that in two of our
corridors we had little ramps, just about this big.
Anyway, we had originally just the
first floor, and that was, I believe, supposed to be sufficient. Then I think Muller did argue for more. So we gradually moved into the second, and
maybe five years later we got the third.
By that time - this was after Bill had found the dose rate effect - we
did need a lot of space, just to pursue the dose rate effect if nothing else.
So whatever I did was always much
smaller scale because Bill had to have maybe a dozen technicians, and I never
had more than one. I was always working
with a single technician.
Q: Muller comes across as a very enigmatic
personality.
A: Oh, he's great, he's just really great.
Q: Because he does all this fundamental
work. He worked with [Thomas Hunt]
Morgan
and he's going to start a program at [University of] Texas and he ends up leaving
for the Soviet Union which he quickly has to leave. Then he has a hard time
trying to find a position in the United States again. What was your interaction?
A: Somewhere I have a folder which you
might like to see. When they had the
first Atoms for Peace conference in 1951, it was in Geneva, and Muller was
denied access because they considered him a Communist. Bill got very much involved in trying to get
that reversed. So I have a whole folder
on Muller and the Atoms for Peace conference.
It's fascinating stuff. He got so
excited over the thing. It was wonderful
to talk to him. He'd get all heated up.
Q: Was he finally --
A: He went to Indiana University.
Q: Yeah, but did he finally get into the
conference, the Atoms for Peace conference?
A: Yes, I think he did.
Q: Okay.
To go back, because we may come up with this topic in a different way,
but I wanted to ask, when you came to Oak Ridge, how important was it to you
that you have a professional identity independent of your husband’s?
A: Yes, and I think it wasn't too
difficult because I was doing something so different. Because my first project was not anything
like what he was doing. But at the same
time, it was something that Hollaender liked because it was -- I don't know
what the word for it is -- project-oriented, because it was something that you
can show practical importance, and radiation had something to do with it. So from the funding point of view, Hollaender
really liked it. And at the same time,
it was very different from anything Bill was doing. So I did have a separate identity.
In
fact, some of the lab with the division would organize an annual big
conference, maybe the third big one that was already organized around this
teratogenesis. So I think I had a very
separate identity from Bill within the division and within the whole scientific
community.
Although a lot of things we did get sort of lumped
together. For instance, he had Roentgen
Medal, which is given by the town of Remscheid-Lennep, and they give that
annually, internationally. So we got
that together, and I don't think they really too much cared that we were doing
different things. They sort of lumped us
together for doing something with radiation on mice.
Q: Okay.
I want to go back -- one question I wanted to ask was, with the project
as it began here at Oak Ridge and the requirements to have a large facility to
handle the mice because it was going to be a large-scale project, in what ways
were you going to become competitors then to the Jackson Labs, which also had
large mouse stocks?
A: I don't think we were because at that
time they did little radiation work. Tom
[Thomas H.] Roderick
for example, who was using inversions as a way to pick up radiation
inducement. That was funded by AEC or
DOE [Department of Energy], whoever it was at the time. But the lab as a whole, the Jackson Lab
didn't really go into radiation, or other types of mutagenesis very much.
Then, of course, in '79 when Bill found ENU [N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea] to
be a supermutagen, then labs all over the place would pick up ENU mutagenesis
just as a tool for making mutations, including Jackson. But I don't think we were competing with them
on that.
|
VI. The
Oak Ridge Labs; Balancing Children and Research
Q: Okay.
Describe when you got here at Oak Ridge, which at that point was still
primarily a production facility for the Manhattan Project?
A: When we first came here, it was very
much oriented toward the Manhattan Project.
I mean, it was emerging from the Manhattan Project. Very shortly after we arrived -- in fact,
when Bill accepted the job, he was under the impression that the lab as a whole
would be administered by the University of Chicago. At the time we came here, it was Monsanto
[Company], and the lab is always run by some other group for the DOE or for the
AEC. It was Monsanto when we came. And then, the end of that year, it was going
to be University of Chicago. That really
pleased Bill a lot, that we were going to be under an academic institution. Like Brookhaven [National Laboratory], for
example, is under - what?
Q: SUNY [State University of New
York]. Isn't that one of the SUNYs? Stony Brook.
A: Yeah, SUNY. And
Argonne [National Laboratory] is under the University of Chicago. So that was the idea, and all of a sudden
they hit us with Union Carbide [Corporation].
Q: And just entering the facility to get
into your work environment, and knowing this was really a military installation
that was going to be transferred as a private industry, or at least kind of
sponsored by this private industry, what were your concerns about the kinds of
science that you would be able to conduct here?
A: Well, I think because we were buffered
by Hollaender, and I think he would never have gone into that kind of
thing. We were never worried that we
would somehow be grouped with a bunch of military work. We were the only division -- at one point,
believe it or not, we were the largest division in Oak Ridge National Lab. It's very hard to believe. Because we were doing only basic genetics
work. I mean, not we personally but the
whole division was doing basic genetics work, and more than 70 percent of it
had nothing to do with radiation or chemicals or anything. It really was like an academic institution
all along, and that was because that's the way he conceived it, and he was
strong enough -- and he was really not a very nice person, but he was very
strong and very able and very important to have as a guy who went and got the
money.
Q: Okay.
And since this was pretty much an experiment for him, and Bill was a key
hire in order to enact this vision of his, for this facility, how confident
were you that Hollaender -- before you even got here, that Hollaender could be
able to create an institution?
A: Not before I came here, because really -
I had not met him, I didn't know what his vision was, and I really didn't care
at that point. I just wanted a place
that Bill could have a job and I could have a job. So my vision didn't go very far.
Q: Okay.
And just briefly, tell me a little bit about -- I imagine Oak Ridge has
grown somewhat since then because it was just a wide place in the road, from
what I understand, before the nuclear facilities were built here. Tell me a little bit about what it was like
to live here, and then to have children here, where the National Laboratory is
about the only game in town, it seems like.
A: Well, there are three facilities. The National Lab was essentially the research
facility, in lots of areas; solid state and metallurgy, and there were all
sorts of different areas. Then there was
the one we passed this morning, Y-12 [Y-12 National Security Complex].
I should go back farther. When the Manhattan district first decided to
set up in Oak Ridge, at that time, they were going to make uranium
hexafluoride, but they didn't know how.
So each facility was going at it in a different way. The Y-12, which we passed today, was
electromagnetic separation. They were
taking this mixture of uranium isotopes and then with a very strong magnet,
they would collect it in different -- it was like a mailbox, it was like a
stack of mail slots, and the whole -- you may have seen pictures -- the whole
facility, they called it a racetrack, was set around an oval and the magnet was
in the middle, and the different isotopes would go into the different slots. So this is a magnetic thing.
Then the one that you have not seen yet, and
I should take you on a tour, was K-25, also called the Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
and that's where the uranium hexafluoride went around a huge long series of
filters that kept separating it by slow degrees. I mean, it was a gigantic facility.
What became Oak Ridge National Lab [original
name of Oak Ridge National Laboratory was X-10] was a reactor, which we passed
this morning, the original. It's now a
museum. They decided -- I'm not sure
when, but certainly before the first bomb was built, that the gaseous diffusion
would be the one they would stick with.
I believe that the material for the first bomb was actually made in Y-12
rather than the gaseous diffusion.
But then they gave up the reactor thing, and
it immediately ceased to have any kind of production interest. Then it really became, probably in 1945 right
after the bombs went off, it became a research facility. So it never had any kind of production implications. I shouldn't say never, it was after they made
the decision that -- so from the time Hollaender was hired, it must have
already been in other areas, not just biology, a research facility.
And the town was really very wonderful. When I first came, I was very, very
disappointed because we came in from the east end of town. We drove in, we drove down from Maine. At that time, the town was not really
finished, and there was a bunch of what was called hutments set up where we
first came into town. They were like
square plywood buildings with shutters instead of windows, and like the first
two miles of town I drove through, that's all I saw, and I almost said let's go
back.
The other thing, I was very stupidly worried
about getting exposed to radiation.
Q: There's just a bit of irony in that.
A: Yeah.
I thought it was in the dust and everything around. So the very first thing I did was buy a
vacuum cleaner, and I very carefully vacuumed the house every morning. I did like about probably a hundred times
more vacuuming then than I have ever done since then. I was very worried. But I soon got disabused of that.
Q: And who disabused you of this idea?
A: Well, because they were very concerned
about limiting radiation exposure anywhere outside of the facility, even within
the facilities. And it's probably the
safest place in the country to be for not getting exposed. And also, I don't know if you have ever seen
pictures of early Oak Ridge. I have a
book at home I'll have to show you.
Originally, when it was being constructed, there were a hundred thousand
people living in this town. Then by the
time I got here, it was pretty well on its way to shrinking, but it hadn't --
the current population is a little less than thirty thousand, and it's been
that for a long, long time. But the
original hundred thousand -- and it had that many. It had all these hutments and all sorts of
temporary structures.
At the same time, by the time we
came, already it was a very interactive, friendly, and intellectual
atmosphere. Not everywhere, but maybe
just people that were working at the labs.
They started an orchestra. One of
the division’s biochemists started the orchestra, and the orchestra is still
going and it's wonderful. They started
an excellent playhouse, and they had all sorts of councils and God knows
what. People were very interactive
because there were very few, and still are very few, restaurants. So people did a lot of eating at each other's
houses.
The schools were wonderful. They still are. I think they’re among the first hundred in
the country, the school system here.
It's a top school system. So some
people -- Dabney [K. Johnson] whom you met last night, she moved to Oak Ridge
originally after her husband died, to have her daughter brought up in the Oak
Ridge school system. And there are a lot
of people who come here just because the school system is so good.
In recent years, it's become much
more sort of a general town. It's no longer
so much centered around the people that work at the lab. It's got a bunch of developers wanting to
grab the land. I mean, the reservation,
the original Oak Ridge Reservation, was fifty-eight thousand acres. It is now thirty-three thousand because of
various things that have been built.
Even at thirty-three thousand, in satellite pictures, it's the greenest
spot anywhere around.
One of the things now is a big concern to
preserve the undisturbed reservation.
There's some of the environmental scientist division that's done some
research into the reservation, too, but lots of it is not disturbed. Just a whole bunch of strong development
interest constantly wanting to grab land from DOE to put another subdivision
over there. So it's become very different.
Q: Okay.
Well, you basically finish up your Ph.D. thesis when you're here, and in
1950 you have your first child? Is that
correct?
A: Yes, I did my finals at Chicago, some
time in the late summer of '49. And I
decided not to have any children until I’d finished my thesis. So then I had my first one in late '50. And I was fired! I mean, not fired but they
did not have maternity leave. You had to
be terminated and rehired.
Q: And was it a guarantee that you'd be
rehired?
A: Well, the funny thing is, not with my first
one, but my second one they did have a maternity leave, but the idea was it was
dangerous to have an embryo around radiation.
I could have told them that they didn't need to worry about the first
three months, but they didn't care about the first three months. I didn't have to leave until like four weeks
before due date. But I lost three months
of my accumulated work credit because I was fired – terminated - and had to be
rehired.
Q: Well, you were concerned when you moved
here about if the radiation would be in the dust and in the air. Were you concerned whether there was enough
radiation in the environment, or that the nature of your work would expose you
more or less than the -?
A: These things [showing a radiation
badge] measure how much radiation there is.
Over all the years, I've had much less than the average population.
Q: I used to work where I collected those
radiation badges. When did radiation
badges begin to be used?
A: They've had some, not this kind, but they've
had some ever since I worked here.
Q: Okay.
And how did you decide when would be a good time to have children?
A: Well, I wanted to have them -- if I
hadn't had to finish my thesis, I probably would have had them a little
earlier. This is also a very good place
to find people to stay with the children.
I never had to send them to nursery school because I always had someone
in the home, a really, really wonderful woman.
We had a little bit of trouble to start with and had turnover, but from
the time that my first child was about three months old until my youngest child
was sixteen, we had the same wonderful woman.
They just loved her. It was great.
Q: At this point, the work here, the
specific locus test was generating a lot of mutations, and there was a lot of
data to be analyzed, or might be analyzed.
How did you see this impact having your child bearing years come at this
very -- which could be a very productive time scientifically for you as well. How did you think you could balance?
A: I didn't hear the last sentence.
Q: How well did you think you could balance
both child rearing and a scientific career?
A: Well, I think that probably both careers
were somewhat impacted by having both of them.
I'm sure that I would have done a lot more work if I had not had the
children, because I very much put them first, particularly when they were
little, even though I had Inez at home all the time. I would be the one to take them to piano
lessons, and I would be the one to take them to school events and all these
things. Of course, if they were sick, I
would not come in to work. So it did
take a fair amount of my time. And
probably during a period when I was doing some of the more interesting
things. But I don't regret it. That's where Mary [Lyon] had an advantage
over me because she never had a family, so she could really single-mindedly
pursue something.
Q: Well, and what concerns did your husband
have, or did you discuss these kinds of concerns of what children would mean
for his career, and balancing the responsibility of fatherhood with --?
A: I think he's pretty much -- I mean,
he's a wonderful father, and he's really devoted a lot of time to them
also. I think the nature of the work was
different to the extent that he could afford more time of not doing things,
because once he started one of these big experiments, he had a dozen
technicians taking over, and then you had to analyze the data. Of course, it wasn't just one experiment,
there were a stack. Even so, it was much
easier in a way for him not to be so involved in the work directly.
He also was very much involved in -- because
of the human implications, he was on a lot of committees that he got put on to,
and also that he felt he should be on. I
mentioned the United Nations [Scientific] Committee [on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation], which was
working quite a lot. Then he was on the
BEAR Committee, Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation. That was a National Research Council
committee, and it became the BEIR [Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation]
Committee. I don't know how many
installations of that, but he was on all of those.
I actually got on a lot of those later on,
but that was after the kids were grown.
I was on several of the National Research Council committees, and I was
on ICPEMC [International Commission for Protection against Environmental
Mutagens and Carcinogens], believe it or not.
Ever heard of that?
Q: No.
A: Oh God, what did it stand for? International Committee for something
mutagens and environmental carcinogens, or something. That gave me a lot of nice interesting trips
to Europe. So committees took also much
more time out of my work than I would have wanted to. But the worst thing that happened was when I
had to go into administration, because in 1975 I became Section Head. That was really a damper. And I didn't do very much interesting stuff
after that. I still did a lot of work,
but it was not as exciting as the stuff before that.
My original section was over a
hundred people, so I got involved into all those little fights and conflicts
between people, and getting the funding, and having to talk to visiting
Washington people. It was awfully time
consuming.
Q: And when children are young, that
probably precludes many women from getting involved in these administrative
duties.
A: Yeah.
It did take so much time, but on the other hand, I didn't have to do so
many of the physical things that other women have to do. I didn't have to do the cooking and cleaning
the house because I had Inez to do that.
So that was really great.
Q: And what expectations did you have for
your children? Were they able to escape
this very unique situation?
A: I didn't have any real -- not like my
dad had with me, I don't think. On the
other hand, I should have probably. I
really wanted them to do what they wanted.
Neither of them had gone into science.
I guess my daughter's the closest to it because she got her master's in
physical therapy, so she got a fair amount of sort of medical-type courses in
connection with that.
And my son was really a musical genius, but
he never did anything professionally with that, mostly because it's too hard to
do anything professionally and earn a living.
But he got -- his original college degree was in music, and then he went
back and got a master's in computer science.
That's not really science.
So neither of them did -- and we've always
wondered why. I think Bill's hypothesis
was that when we came home and talked at the dinner table, we would spend much
time bitching about Hollaender or bitching about what was going on in the lab
that was ornery. Like if you had to
renew your badge, and you had to fill out this and that. We would spend our dinner times bitching
about these things instead of talking about the exciting things we were
doing. So that's his theory of why they
didn't.
Q: Okay.
Well, I think we've covered a lot of ground today, and we're at a good
place to stop. We'll pick up again
tomorrow.
A: Okay.
|
VII. Thoughts on Women
in Science; Further Discussion on the Relationship of Home and Work Life;
Collaborations with William Russell and Scientific Writing
Q: It is January 19th, 2007, and I am with Liane
Brauch Russell at her office here at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I'm Andrea Maestrejuan and we're here to
conduct the last session for her oral history interview for the UCLA Human
Genetics Oral History Project.
I wanted to follow up with some topics that
we talked about a little bit yesterday.
One of them is just a general question about women in science, because
we do have these figures, like Rosalind Franklin
and Barbara McClintock
who, as you said before in talking about Mary Lyon, have made some sacrifices
in their personal lives. So we have
these women who are loners, working alone, as role models. How accurate do you think that is for women,
that they either have to choose between a very rich professional life or family
life, or settle for something in between the two if they want both?
A: I do think that the ones that were
loners and did not have families really worked a lot harder, and maybe had to work harder in the type of
environment they were in. That surely
was true of Rosalind Franklin and Barbara McClintock. I don't know whether they made the choices
purposely, if they had not chosen to work so hard whether they would have had
families. There is a trade-off. You do not work so hard, you do not pursue
your goals so single-mindedly if you do have other interests. Maybe they are families, but sometimes
they're just some other outside interest that somebody also has an avocation or
something like that.
I think the other thing also is that
when you do go single-mindedly, you also become more competitive and you're
looked upon as being -- at least you used to be looked upon as being bitchy or
abrasive or something because you were making your way as a woman. I think some of them really were bitchy, and
certainly not the ones that you have mentioned.
I don't know Rosalind Franklin. I
have met Barbara McClintock. In no way was she bitchy or abrasive. But some of the geneticists I knew, a few of
them, were.
Really, many of the ones I know –
women - did not have families. I'm
trying to search my memory here. Well,
in the division, we had, very interestingly, a lot of husband-wife teams, in
the biology division. There were the
Popps [Raymond A. and Diana M.]. They
were not really -- I mean, she was not really a geneticist.
There was Rhoda [F.] Grell. Now, Rhoda Grell was a special case. She's still alive. She is really very brilliant. I think she's extremely brilliant. She was definitely paranoid about how she was
being suppressed by male colleagues. She
did not have the conflict of a family.
She had a son, I think, from an earlier marriage, who was pretty well
grown, and I think she did not really become a research person until after he
had left home, so she did not have the family conflict.
She was not really bitchy, but she was
paranoid, and she had reason to some extent.
They really were trying to
suppress her. She was working
essentially on gene duplication in relation to pachytene
stages, when did crossing over occur, things like that. People were really trying to sort of push
that idea into the background. I think
she was exonerated later on, but I don't know how much credit she got. So I think paranoia was justified in some
cases, at least maybe in the sixties or seventies or something like that.
There is a trade-off with having a
family. You do not go to the lab at all
hours of the day and night, you do not read all the literature, and you don't
push yourself, you don't go to the meetings that would advance you and get your
message spread to the extent.
Q: How much do you think that these
behavior types in women are typical of all scientists, or specific to women
scientists. This kind of competitiveness
and what you call bitchiness, is that something peculiar to females working
within the sciences?
A: No, it isn't. But on the other hand, the males don't have
the family conflicts to the same extent.
They do make the trade-off, but I think they're more often in a
trade-off in the direction of the work, because they're able to forego some of
the family obligations.
I don't know to what extent that's still
true, but -- well, I had a colleague here who really did most of the caretaking
of their child because his wife was an M.D.
I don't think that he did very much at the expense of his work.
Q: We kind of mentioned this on Wednesday
evening, that the life sciences, and genetics in particular, seem to have a
striking number of women who made significant work in our part of the canon of
the history of genetics. You might argue
that that's true for the life sciences as opposed to the physical sciences, to
a lesser extent chemistry. Why do you
think that was the case for say your generation of women?
A: Are you asking why I think that's true?
Q: Or if it is true, if that's just an
anecdote that I'm emphasizing, which may or may not be true. And if is true, what do you think accounts
for the number of women?
A: Honestly, I think it is true. I think there are a large number of women in
genetics. Particularly in -- I was going
to say in mammalian genetics, but that may not be totally true. I know quite a few in mammalian genetics, but
it's probably true of other model organisms too. I don't know how it stacks up in human
genetics. I don't know why that
happened, whether it's just a role model that occurred early. It's not because it's easier, that's for
sure.
In many ways I think genetics is much more
intellectual challenging than say field biology or something like that. It's really very mathematically oriented, and
according to some ideas, the female brain is not as mathematically oriented. I don't think that's true, but it certainly
would argue in the opposite direction.
Genetics requires so much logic and so much inference from data that are
not -- it isn't that you do something and find something, but you make an
interesting inference from vaguely related findings, and it requires a lot of
that kind of thinking. I think that's
more of a mathematic type of thinking.
You certainly can't account for it from that argument.
Even in the mutagenesis area, Charlotte
Auerbach -
I don't know if you know her, she worked during the war, and she made quite a
few contributions. I don't know whether
she was a role model. I don't think so,
because her work was fairly secret.
Barbara McClintock. I'm trying to
think of the people in the late forties and early fifties. Mary Lyon started working around that time.
It still is not a huge percentage. Has anybody done the statistics on it?
Q: No, I don't think so. What changes have you seen over the course
of your career in regards to the work environment for women who want to do
genetics research?
A: Well, certainly the environment I was
in, and it may not have been typical, was very favorable. I mean, there was really -- I don't think
there was much discrimination, sex discrimination. For one thing, as I mentioned, we had a whole
lot of -- in the division -- of couples working, not always both in
genetics. It could have been two
different fields.
Well, Dr. Hollaender, bless his heart, who
was always very careful about saving money and using it for some other
things. That was really one
discrimination, and that was salary, that, at least in our case, the female
member of the pair got a much lower
salary, because Hollaender said, "You don't need it, your husband's making
all that money." I mean, he said it
quite openly. So that was a
discrimination.
But certainly in terms of what you could do
to advance your research, and so on, there wasn't any discrimination in that
way, other than the type of -- the women had the same struggle the men had in
trying to make their case for funding within the division. Of course, the outside, I don't know -- for
grants, I don't know whether there was any in those days or not. But within the division, everybody had to
fight for intradivisional funding.
Q: And what opportunities did you have to
address these differences in salary?
A: I think you could probably go and
scream at him and you probably would have been successful. He was very susceptible to people who stood
up for themselves. It's something I
didn't do, and probably should have done.
And even Bill didn't do, because he was always very nebulous. He probably couldn't tell you what his salary
was, and that kind of thing. If you
didn't go and scream for a raise, you didn't get it.
Nowadays, after Hollaender left, and this is
lab-wide, this was no longer the case because they had a performance appraisal
process put in place, which was very -- you know, in a performance appraisal
everybody had the same chance. But
before that, you had to go and scream for raises. Bill didn't do it because as long as he had
enough to get by on, he didn't really care that much.
Q: Okay.
Well, we talked a little bit about this yesterday, but how well were you
able -- because you and your husband had separate research projects but you did
publish together, and certainly the research was coordinated, how well do you
think you drew the lines between what's at work stays at work and what's in the
family stays -- separating the home life from your lab life.
A: I don't know how you would have had the
family in your lab life, other than allowing the kids in the lab, which was not
allowed for external reasons. So I don't
know how -- we had an open day when you could get them through in the lab, but
other than that, there was really no way to get your home life into the
laboratory. Of course, the other way you
could do, you could take your work home, and we did a lot of that. A lot of the writing was done at home, a lot
of the talking about the work was done at home.
So it worked one way and didn't work the
other way, but I don't know whether we would have consciously avoided taking it
home. I mean, the tendency was actually
to do more of it at home because the kids were there. So if you had a choice of writing a paper in
your office or writing it at home, you would write it at home, after they'd
gone to bed, that kind of thing.
Q: It seems like it wasn't so unusual that
there were working couples here at Oak Ridge, but certainly in science in
general it's unusual. If you were
collaborating on a paper together, for instance, how would you coordinate your
collaboration?
A: You mean how Bill and I…?
Q: Yes.
A: Well, we knew at all stages of the work
what the other person was doing. They
would talk about data as they were coming in, and what was interesting. As far as the writing went, one of us would
always do the first draft. I don't think
we'd ever say you write this part and I write this part. I think one of us would write the whole first
draft, but then we had a lot of input from each other in subsequent
drafts. So by the time I had a paper
that I considered finished, it had really been through the mill. I mean, it was very polished because Bill was
a very good critic. I found out I didn't
have to send it to an outside review, but of course we did. We had a very rigorous intradivision
reviewing process before it even went outside.
So that was really the collaboration on the papers, that one would write
the whole thing. And it was just very
natural as to who would do it.
I did write the first drafts for
lots of Bill's data because he was not a heavy publisher, and it harmed his
career not to publish. So I would write
the first drafts for quite a few of his things.
I think the reason he wasn't a heavy publisher because he was such a
perfectionist. He always thought it
wasn't quite done. For instance, on some
mutation rate thing, he'd say, "Well, all the mutants aren't tested
yet." It didn't really matter so
much if they were all tested or not, but he was a real perfectionist. He wanted to wait until the last possible
piece of data was in. I would say,
"Hey, let's get it out, and then later on if you write a review paper or
something, you can add the additional things." So from that point of view, I think there was
some conscious taking over.
The dose rate paper went through
incredible back and forth. I mean, that
was his data. But it was very important
to get it out right because it was so totally going against dogma. We must have had that in the back and forth
stage for a couple months at least.
Q: And how did you handle disagreements in
either style and/or content?
A: No problem. [I] usually accepted things as good
suggestions. I think I objected to some
of the style changes because I maybe put a little more emotion into my style. (chuckles) But I think I really just learned a lot from
the criticisms. I learned to be very
rigorous and very sure that what I was saying was not easy to misconstrue
because of the words that were used.
Q: And what was it about you that you were
able to take some of his data -- he was reluctant to put together until he had
the final experiment done. What was it
about you that you were able to just go ahead and draft something?
A: Because I write very easily. We had a staff member who had to write one
paragraph on something. It was not a
scientific paper. I watched him, and he
was physically in agony writing this paragraph.
And I just dashed things off very easily. As I say, Bill was such a perfectionist, he
didn't.
What I would sometimes do -- and this was
pre-word processing, pre-computers. He
might sit in an armchair and say a sentence that he was going to [write]-- and
then he would go off on something. It
was really in the very early stages of thinking out writing. And I would write down everything he said. I had all these embryonic fragments of
thoughts down on paper, and then later on we would find them very useful. Because I did not want him to wait until he
had the perfect sentence before he got it down, because I knew that he would go
back and forth and think, “No, this is not really right,” and in the meantime,
nothing would get written down and he might lose the thought. So I was just writing down all sorts of junk
thoughts sometimes, but very embryonic thoughts and parts of sentences. That we did a lot of.
Q: You mentioned that early in your
undergraduate career, or high school career, you had won an essay contest.
A: Yeah, when I was a freshman.
Q: And you had seriously considered -- you
had gone around publishing houses and seriously considered a job in
writing. How did that idea of writing
contrast with the kind of writing that one does to get scientific papers
published?
A: Well, it's very different, because I
also, at that same time in my freshman year, maybe the next year, I did write a
few short stories, which I did not send off anywhere. That, of course, would be very, very
different. But the essay type thing was
not that different in a way because I had to have logical thoughts and consider
different possibilities. So that wasn't
that different. But the fact that I had
written them for non-scientific things I think just made it a lot easier for me
to write without agonizing over it. I
think this is where the word processors are so wonderful. You just write whatever's in your head and it
doesn't matter, you can come back to it, you can move it around. And that's the kind of thing that held people
up from writing, that they couldn't do it when they were writing it down.
Q: And how do you teach in your own staff
and research assistants and whoever else you might have had come through the
lab -- postdocs I'm not sure about but we can talk about that -- how do you
teach one to write well?
A: This is a very real problem. When I was in high school in England in sixth
form, that I mentioned yesterday, which is really post high school, every other
week we had to write an essay on anything, and the alternate weeks we would
write what we called a précis. A précis
is essentially like an abstract. The
précis had to be a certain number of words, and it was great training. I wish they would make students in high
school do that, to take the essence out of information and get it down in
logical sequence. So writing a précis every
other week, boy, that's the only way.
But I think by the time they have come here
and have got their Ph.D. and everything, it may be too late, I don't know. Or else take a year off and write précis, you
know. The newsletter I gave you
yesterday, that's essentially a series of articles. I don't know how much chance you had to look
at it, but for each article I have probably ten, twelve information sources,
and I try to get it all together into a paragraph this long.
So I have continuous practice in writing, and
I will dash it off. The really hard thing is to get my information sources
together, and once I have those, it's very easy to write.
|
VIII. Comparing Oak
Ridge to a University and to Jackson Labs; Funding; Role as Division Head at
Oak Ridge
Q: To get back to when you came here to Oak
Ridge, you had basically come here with this project in mind, to create a large
number of breeding experiments to study mutation. In terms of your own work as a scientist and
your own identity as a scientist, what did you foresee the kind of the results
of the breeding experience?
A: How much did I foresee?
Q: Yeah.
Did you foresee that this would shape the content of your research for
the next couple of decades?
A: No.
It went along as each thing came up sort of. For instance, I did the teratogenesis and
nothing else for maybe three or four years, or even longer than that. Then I did the somatic mutation I always
wanted to do. I had that in mind from --
in fact, that's why I got in to the teratogenesis, accidentally, because I was
doing the preliminary. So that was a
direction I had very much in mind, and it was something that was going to be
different from the germ line mutagenesis, very different.
But then the other things
arose. For instance, we would get
mottled mutants, and that took me into the whole area of the variegated
position effect and into the X chromosome area.
And spontaneous XOs occurred, so that took me into the area of just
finding out more about induced ones, and also about spontaneous ones. I mean, the first ones were spontaneous, and
we had not really thought -- I just went off and decided what is a good way to
find out when they can be induced in relation to the meiotic cycle or
post-fertilization events and things like that.
So there was this back and forth
between doing this from the genesis of the thing, from sort of the basic
information. That then became a test
system, and once I got the test system developed, then the tests would supply
things that again would be worthy of basic work. So there was a constant back and forth
between the programmatic and the basic, I think.
Q: And how much do you account for your
success in being able to build and build and build upon the initial work that
you started here that has lasted a lifetime of research work? How much is that a unique situation that was
here at Oak Ridge, as opposed -- and as you stayed here, this might be a
counterfactual question -- say, for instance, if you were at a university and
not in a laboratory setting like this?
A: If I had been at a university, I
probably would not have had the mouse facility.
I mean, in another field this might not be true, you might have the same
kind of facilities in a university and here.
And, of course, the teaching load would have taken away from my research
time. On the other hand, I would have
kept up with the literature a lot better.
I probably would not have the pain of having to go and get to the
literature.
In our mouse facility over at Y-12,
which was a very clean but conventional facility, I could walk from my office
across the hall, literally. There was a
mouse room right across the hall. I
didn't have to put on a gown, I didn't have to take a shower. And any time a thought occurred to me, I'd go
over there and say, well, let's look at these litters and see what's -- you
know, whatever. If I decided to make a
particular cross, we would probably have all the strains right there. We wouldn't have to import anything.
And we'd have other mutants that would be
very important, like for instance, with the translocation stocks that had the
X-linked translocations, they were pretty hard to maintain, the stocks, to
propagate. The females were semi-sterile
because of the translocation, and not only are they semi-sterile but they're worse
than semi-sterile because physiological impact on the mother of the
translocation. So you get litter sizes
of maybe two or three or something like that instead of a normal litter of
seven or eight. They're pretty hard to
maintain.
Probably, if I had not had all the choice of
stocks, I could pick from any number of stocks to cross the translocations that
would be the right genotype to give you phenotypic recognition -- you know, it
would tell the segregants and at the same time might make the stock easier to
keep, I could just go pick and choose.
In a university, I would have to write to people and ask them to send me
different stocks and all this kind of stuff.
I think as a mouse geneticist it was ideal,
it was really ideal. I would not have
been able to do half of what I did. Plus
the fact, of course, the mutants came out of Bill's experiments.
But going back to the university thing, the
thing that some of us missed was having students, graduate students. Then when the lab instituted the
collaborative project, the UT [University of Tennessee]-ORNL Graduate School of
Biomedical Sciences [now called the Graduate School of Genome Science and
Technology], then we were able to have students and take them through --
Dabney, whom you met on Wednesday night, she went through the UT Biomed when
she was in her forties. She was a great
student. She was not my student. I was able to have two or three students that
way, and that was help[ful]. And also,
we were able to give lectures.
Q: Was this out here at Oak Ridge, or did
you have to go to the university campus?
A: It was physically at Oak Ridge, but
they got a UT degree. They had to take
some of their course work over there because we didn't offer the whole basic
Ph.D. type course work. The courses we
gave out at the laboratory were pretty specialized, so they had to take much of
their basic work at UT.
Q: I'm going to be jumping around a little
bit as we try to cover some different areas, but to continue along in this
vein, typically in an academic setting, you would have a phalanx of
technicians, graduate students and postdocs, and maybe visiting scholars. How
did you get the hands in your lab to help you, and how easy was it to attract
competent technicians and research assistants here at Oak Ridge?
A: Bill's work required a lot of
technicians. It was not so technically
demanding in terms of wet labs type of work, but it was very demanding in terms
of recognizing mutants and that kind of thing.
The technicians that we started to attract right in the early fifties
were mostly -- I was going to say out of southern colleges, but that's not
entirely true, but many of them were out of southern colleges.
And they were almost entirely females. I don't know whether that was a conscious
choice or whether most of the science majors in these colleges, if they were
male, most of them might have gone on to graduate school and most of the
females went on to look for jobs. That
could be part of the reason. But somehow
we ended up with almost entirely female technicians. Not until later, in the sixties, did we get a
few male technicians.
They got quite a bit of training on site, not
only in terms of what they had to look for, but the whole system of record
keeping was very well developed by Bill, and they had to learn the record
keeping. For instance, every mouse had a
pen tag, a breeding card that recorded the litter of a particular female, plus
the distribution of segregants, and a ledger record. So everything was cross-referenced three
ways. You could look at any one mouse --
I sometimes demonstrated that to visitors.
We'd pick up a mouse, read the earmarks, and I could go back and find
that mouse's ancestry like six generations ago in a space of ten minutes, by
going through the regular ledger records and the card records. So they had to learn that.
And they had to learn some very general
things, which were very important, like if you make a mistake, own up to it,
you're not going to be punished, but if you cover over it you might screw up
the breeding for generations to come.
Very general things like that.
We had a great, great collection of
technicians. We never had trouble
really. Maybe in the course of the years
we had maybe three real lemons, but most of them were just really good. In fact, upstairs is Pat [Patricia R.]
Hunsicker, who was -- it was like a little army, and there was usually one
general, one of the technicians. Pat
Hunsicker became the general in the maybe eighties, and she's now the only one
that's still working here. She is in
charge -- we have all of our mutants and stuff on a database, which is
accessible to the world, and people are often asking. They're all frozen, unfortunately. When we moved, we had to freeze them
all. So she's the person who will know
most about any of these things.
You were asking about students. I mentioned the graduate school, but also we
had a lot of visiting scientists, a lot of them from abroad, but not
always. Some of them stayed a long time,
really became part of the program. There
was no difficulty because most of them got some of their pay from their home
institutions because it was considered good for them to be working in a
group. I don't think they cost us
terribly much.
In the old days, we used to be pretty
affluent. Hollaender was great at
getting the money. The AEC had lots of
money in those days, and they were very willing to support basic research. I
don't remember ever having to apply for an NIH [National Institutes of Health]
grant or anything like that. In those
days, it was very easy to get money.
Then in the eighties, things started shutting down.
Q: And then what were your funding
opportunities for your work?
A: I had never had to apply for -- I did
have a large interagency agreement, a very large one, that I got through NIEHS,
that's the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. They supported a lot of the chemical
mutagenesis work, and they were very good also at supporting what came out of
it in terms of analysis of say germ-cell stages and things like that. But that was most of the fundraising work
that I had to do. That was a fair amount
of work. I had to really put myself out
to get the agency contract and to keep getting it renewed and to have it
broadened so it would support more and more people in the section.
Q: Well, how would you contrast Jackson Labs
and the lab here at Oak Ridge?
A: Well, Jackson didn't do any mutagenesis
really, except for what Tom Roderick was doing, and that was a small
project. It was a really important one,
but it was not expensive or a big part of what the lab did. And I think he had some AEC funding.
We were really, in terms of the
funding, totally mutagenesis-oriented, and Jackson probably maybe 3 percent
mutagenesis-oriented. Their big income
came from selling mice, so that was a really big part of Jackson, and we did
not. We distributed a lot of mice, we
had a huge distribution, people wanting this and that mutant, but we never
charged for anything.
We were able to also -- but that was
only in later years -- I think get some industry funding for specific
contracts, like Waldi [Walderico M.] Generoso, who was our chromosome
aberration
guy, got some for some artificial sweetener testing, I can't remember which
one.
And I got one small one for triclosan. Do you know what that is? It's in Dial soap, in the antibacterial soaps. So I tested that with a spot test, I
think. The spot test was fairly popular
for industry to test thing, and I was able to get this outside funding. It may have been the first time we ever got
outside funding, and it took a bit of red tape.
I didn't like it. I didn't like
the requirements, how I had to report to them and how they were sort of pushing
me and showing it really wasn't a bad thing.
I did not like it, and I did not encourage it. I think it's the only one that I remember
having.
Other than that, it was all government
funding. I don't know to what extent
Jackson had government funding. I know they would get individual grants, NIH
grants, or so. In later years, of
course, most recently, everybody who works here now has to have an NIH grant or they don't get anything, [not] enough
to support them. And they've become much
more program-oriented now, the DOE is almost totally program-oriented, and they
don't want to fund anything that isn't related to Homeland Security.
Q: Is any salary support given by the
national lab now, or does it all have to come out of your NIH grants?
A: To the people who work here now?
Q: Uh-huh [yes].
A: I do think they get it, but I really
don't know because I have very consciously divorced myself from anything
administrative, which I'm so happy to do.
I get all these e-mail messages and I press “erase”. I don't know.
I really probably should. I'm
sorry.
Q: That's okay. Why have you shied away from administrative
duties?
A: Well, I was section head from '75 to
'95, so those are long twenty years during which I really did much less
research than I would have wanted to, and I really did the kind of research
that I could more or less assign to technicians. It was not the most exciting period of my
research career, and I was very glad to drop that in '95. It was taken over by Rick [Richard P.]
Woychik at
that time, and then subsequently by other people when he left. But I was still working.
I was still getting paid until 2002 I think
is when I finally retired. I felt I had
to know something, but I didn't have to do
very much. Since then, of course, I
guess I'm no longer employed, so I can do essentially as much or as little --
in terms of knowing. I'm certainly not
expected to do anything.
Q: As division head, what were your goals?
A: My goals were really to get us into the
molecular era. I think I was fairly
successful in that because it all started -- well, we hadn't talked about this
yesterday. It was really the complementation
studies with the mutants. Because there
were so many mutants at each locus, the complementation was very fruitful and
we were able to generate what would then be considered almost fine structure
maps, just from the complementation.
So through the complementation studies, we
were able to, just by the breeding results, identify new lethals or sub-lethals
or even visibles that were in the whole complex. And the complexes were of different sizes and
at the different loci. They ranged from
maybe two or three centimorgans to ten or twelve centimorgans. So there were fairly long stretches of
different chromosomes.
When we generated the genetic complementation
maps, it
immediately seemed, well, this is something that you can really go a lot
farther with if you can characterize some of the new mutants and also get a
much more detailed map, and we had to go into molecular.
I collaborated with -- and this was through
the dilute-short ear region. The dilute-short ears, right from the start,
Bill thought it was a good idea to have a couple of linked loci. We actually had two sets of link loci among
the seven. And the dilute-short ear are
very close. They're .6 centimorgans
apart. So really early, like in his very
first paper, he was able to tell whether he was inducing a broad proportion of
smaller deletions, or even large deletions he was inducing, as compared to
maybe smaller lesions.
Because of that, the first complementation
test I did was in the dilute-short ear region.
I did that actually in the early seventies. Then Nancy [A.] Jenkins and Neal [G.]
Copeland, who
were interested in dilute because the dilute mutation itself was due to a viral
integration, and they came at it from that direction. So they were interested in dilute. I started collaborating with them with the
mutants that we had characterized on this complementation map, and many that we
had identified as being overlapping deletions of different lengths.
Then, after I started collaborating with
them, they had a postdoc at the time, who was Gene [Eugene M.] Rinchik, so Gene
came to work for us after he had finished his postdoc with them. So he started out on the molecular
characterization of some of the dilute-short ears, and later on got into brown [locus-region].
Well, he also characterized a class of
mutants that we had not been able to do much with genetically because they are hypermorphs
as far as the phenotype is concerned.
But they're viable, and that particularly applied to the albino
mutant. So he, for instance,
characterized a group of viable albinos that yet some of them turned out to be
very small deletions, intralocus deletions.
So he was the first molecular geneticist we had.
Then he and I together knocked ourselves out
to convince DOE that we really needed more people. The man who was in charge at that time of --
I don't know what they call it. It's
part of administration of the biological research. His name is [Charles] DeLisi. He's a molecular geneticist himself, but he
was working purely administratively.
Anyhow, we went up and we gave him a long
propaganda presentation. We ended up to
get funding for an additional one, and that's when we got Rick Woycik, and Rick
hugely expanded the type of thing we were doing because he was doing insertional
mutagenesis. Well, he himself
wasn't. We got another one, [J.
Frederic] Mushinsky, who was doing insertional mutagenesis. Rick was doing -- well, he was shooting
pieces of DNA essentially into fertilized eggs.
So that's just a totally different area.
So really, through Gene and then Rick -- and
Rick ended up with a whole slew of students who were very good students and
very much broadened the whole area. They
were doing the (a) [agouti] locus and some of the non-specific -- we also had a lot of mutants that were not
specific locus mutants, things that just popped up at other loci, non-marked
loci. One of his students, for instance,
decided to go into skin mutants.
I think the molecular expansion probably started from
the time I collaborated with Nancy Jenkins and Neal Copeland, and then really
got going after Gene Rinchik came here.
And then Rick, fortunately, wanted to be section head. That killed him
too eventually. [laughter]
|
IX. Modern
Authorship and Today’s Research Environment; Spontaneous Mutation; Research
Techniques
Q: How did molecular techniques change the
nature of your work? Because in the
fifties and sixties and seventies you really collaborated with other members in
the lab. It wouldn't be unusual for you
to have a single author publication, or maybe one or two other people. But, for instance, in the shorter mutation
when you're cloning out the gene, or your collaborators are, in the Cell paper [Kingsley, DM, et. al. The
mouse short ear skeletal morphogenesis locus is associated with defects in a
bone morphogenetic member of the TGFß superfamily. Cell. 1992 Oct 30;71(3):399-410.], there's three different
institutions, there are six or seven different authors on this paper. How did molecular techniques begin to change
the way in which you conducted your research?
A: My own?
I never did any of those molecular techniques. These were my collaborators. I would essentially furnish the genetic
information and do what other things I thought were necessary to do from a
genetic evidence point of view. And, of
course, we had the mutants.
Recently, last year, I communicated
a paper to PNAS
[Smyth, IM, et al. Genomic anatomy of the Tyrpl (brown) deletion complex.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America. 2006 March 7; 103(10):3704-3709.] that's on the brown locus. It's
really based originally on the complementation record of the brown locus. That has sixty authors. Ian [J.] Jackson is the corresponding author
- sixty authors.
On that one, I really didn't do much
other than -- I was not an author on that one, I communicated the paper. But Dabney Johnson was an author, and she
essentially had characterized a couple of the mutants they used.
Nowadays, you pick these papers,
everybody's a specialist in something.
No one person knows even at least half the techniques that have gone
into the paper.
Q: And what accounts for this dramatic
change, it seems to me, in the course of a few decades, that you essentially
could do all the experiments and write the paper with you and one or two other
people in your own lab to this consortium of research?
A: I think in a way I'm glad that I grew
up in the former era, because you have much less of a part in anything
now. I don't even know whether most of
these people don't even know each other.
The paper that Dabney and I were talking about on Wednesday night that I
communicated, which was rejected, it was due mostly to the collaborators, the
guy who works here who was the corresponding author. I think his part was pretty good, but I think
some of the collaborators' stuff was awful, and I don't think he even knew some
of them. They certainly don't get
together and talk very much. There
wasn't anything like Bill and I, for instance.
And I would consider it much less satisfying. It's a good way to get your list of
publications greatly extended without doing a hell of a lot of work, but it's
not really your baby.
Q: So, do you have a different sense of
value to the work that you do in this later era than you did in the former
period?
A: I think the original complementation
work I felt very satisfied by. I thought
that really was my baby, and some really interesting conclusions one could
draw, what grew out of it. By that time,
it was no longer -- I was renting my baby out to a lot of other people.
That doesn't mean that there wasn't
some other things I did that I wasn't very interested in. But that was mostly analysis of -- well, of our
findings without having to go into the lab and do anything. And some of them I wrote after I no longer had
access. I don't have any research
funds.
The analysis, for example, of
certain mutagens that will -- first of all, the stages at which they're most
effective. At that time, there was
nothing that was most effective in between meiotic divisions and basic -- the
mitotically dividing spermatogonia. In between, nothing was particular effective
until we found etoposide.
So I wasn't as crazy about testing a bunch of
chemicals, but once in a while you'd come up with something that was very
unusual. So etoposide was affected in
packaging. And we said, okay, if it does
that, it may have influenced crossing over.
So I got into this whole area of chemical effects and crossing over,
which really has not been very much known, so I considered that pretty satisfactory.
That was probably due to the fact that, first
of all, I had access to data on dozens of other chemicals that I was able to
put together, able to relate germ-cell stage to chemical. And that we were
lucky in finding one that acted on crossing over. Just like Bill found ENU. That comes out of
testing dozens of uninteresting chemicals, and all of a sudden you find
ENU.
And then the other thing that I found really
satisfying in the later years when I was busy as an administrator was looking
at spontaneous mutations. Because we had
run such a large operation, we had accumulated data on spontaneous mutations,
which normally no one -- if you put together everybody's work all over the
world, you would still have very few. So
I had this -- I don't know if you got to read it, this thing in PNAS on spontaneous mutations? [Russell
LB, Russell WL. Spontaneous mutations recovered as mosaics in the mouse specific-locus test. PNAS 1996 Nov 12; 93(23):13072-7.]. I
think it was in '96. That had -- let me pull
it out.
[pause]
Q: To kind of bridge from our brief pause
to your PNAS articles in which you
were just showing me that most of the spontaneous mutations in that paper were
from your lab, but a few others from two other labs. Would this kind of work been possible in
today's research environment?
A: I don't think -- certainly, you would
have had to have raised and looked at huge numbers of mice to make that
possible. And I think I pointed out that
even from the other two labs, which are pretty large, each one, each got around
ten, and by the time you put them all together, there was about sixty. Of course, we were looking at specific loci,
but unless you look at specific loci, you really cannot get a mutation,
spontaneous mutation information.
There were two kinds of things that
were happening. Some of the specific
locus spontaneous mutations were mosaics, visible mosaics. But then also some whole body occurred in
clusters, and that was only possible because from any one male we would raise a
huge progeny. I mentioned the seven
shell thing yesterday. Because of the
seven shell thing, we got a maximum production from each male. Hundreds or more was not unusual from any
given male, and it's only when you have a large progeny from an individual animal
that you're able to detect clusters.
Instead of one mutation, you might get five or six.
So these two circumstances made it
possible to detect mosaicisms that occurred in the previous generation. Either it occurred in what I call the score
generation, where they were visibly mosaic, or if the same mutation occurred
one generation back, then the gonad of the male that was having these progenies
was mosaic. And you were able to detect
that by getting a cluster of mutants.
So these two circumstances, once we got
others analyzed, it made it, first of all, appear that they were mostly
fifty-fifty, the distribution. It's like
this, you know, with a mean just about fifty.
And also, that indicated that they occurred between the last pre-meiotic
mitosis and the first post-meiotic mitosis, which would be in the pro-nucleus
stage. We called this the perigametic
interval
and most spontaneous mutations was a higher mutation rate in the perigametic
interval than the spontaneous mutations that were picked up as singletons, were
whole body and were just one to a sibship. So that had all sorts of implications, why
the perigametic interval?
Then in this other paper [Russell WL, Bangham
JW, Russell LB. Differential response of mouse male germ-cell stages to radiation-induced
specific-locus and dominant mutations. Genetics.
1998 Apr;148(4):1567-78.] we showed that they had a different distribution
among the loci. These were the ones that
occurred in the perigametic interval, and these were the ones that were singletons.
Things like that that you do with just
existing data, if you just look at it the right way. I think even not having
laboratory funding there's lots of things that you can do. And that's very satisfying to me.
[pause]
Q: How has the pace of science
changed? I have interviewed some
biomedical researchers who are in their late thirties, early forties, just
getting started in their career, and they would say that they were so busy
generating data, with all the new techniques available, PCR, microarrays, that
just sitting around and thinking about the larger implications of this data,
they just didn't have time for. How do
you think that has changed in the course of your career, the pace at which data
is generated?
A: I think I agree with what these other
people were saying. I was thinking that
I would hate right now to be entering
the career. I mean the process of getting a Ph.D. and doing a postdoc is so
much more difficult. I couldn't do it, I
probably couldn't do it.
Q: And why is that?
A: Well, you'd have to know all these
millions of techniques and do them. And
as you say, if you do that, you probably don't have much time to think about
the broader picture. You have to be a
real whiz at maybe ten different, at least, complicated techniques.
The other thing is that you are
expected by the time you get your Ph.D. to have maybe three or four
publications. In my generation, your
first publication usually was your thesis.
It didn't happen to be in my case because I had a couple before that because
of the work on the pigment genetics at Jackson.
But most people who got their Ph.D., their thesis was the first thing
they published. Then it was some time
before they had enough data wherever they went to work before they -- now you’re
expected to have all these publications.
For your thesis, you have to have all these techniques. You have to be so competitive before you get
anywhere. I think it would be too hard for me to do. I probably would chicken out.
Q: And how do you think that affects the
quality of the science that's being produced?
A: I think you really weed out a lot of
people, but I don't know whether you're doing the right weeding out. You certainly are weeding out the
non-technically adept, who might be very good thinkers.
Q: Okay.
I want to get back to this issue of techniques, because you develop this
mouse spot test, and it becomes pretty much a standard technique to easily
screen. Tell me a little bit about
that. What was driving your science at
that time? Was it purely a technical
issue, in order to deal with all these generations of mice that you had to
analyze? Or how much was being driven by
just kind of the practicalities that there were limited techniques available
and you were really after a larger theoretical problem?
A: Well, I think there was always a
pressure for us to do something that was practical. Really, the people who funded us wanted --
needed something by which you could assess the mutagenicity of something. This is particularly after the chemical mutagenesis
started. The first decade or so of our
work was unencumbered by the problem of chemical mutagenesis. It didn't really start going until the
sixties. And then people said, “God,
there's tens of thousands of chemicals out there that really need to be looked
at for their mutagenic potential.” So
all these different committees came up looking at short-term tests.
There was something called a Gene Talks
Program. It was funded by the EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency]. They
assembled committees of about maybe a dozen people for each test, for each
short-term test, to gather all the literature and to assess the test. But that was not the primary thing that
really pertains to your question. That
sort of came farther along.
But there was the constant pressure or
encouragement to have short-term tests, so the big -- the things that were used
at that time were Salmonella. We were very leery of whether this really
predicted mutagenicity in mammals.
Because it was chemicals rather than radiation, and you had to have the
metabolism -- I mean, radiation you can really compare organisms a lot better,
but you have to have the physiology of the animal that's getting hit with the
mutagen.
Plus the fact that germ-cell stage is so
important. We now know that it's more
important even than we thought to start with.
For instance, on the dose rate effect with radiation, we departed from
Drosophila because -- but it turned out after -- this was not really something
basic probably, but almost all Drosophila mutagenesis data came from mature oocytes
or in some cases sperm. But the dose
rate effect happened only in mitotic spermatagonia. The fact that the short-term tests to screen
for chemical mutagenicity we thought were not applicable really. So we ourselves had the pressure on ourselves
to see if we can't have a short-term mammalian test. Of course, the specific locus test is far
from short-term. I mean, it can be done quickly, but you need a lot of mice.
So having done the basic work on the somatic
mutations with the same loci, that seemed like that's the way to go. And it is a short-term test. So that's when I really got to marketing it
as a short-term test and doing quite a bit of it myself.
The thing that I wish had been also adopted,
although it was not mutagenicity, but it was teratogenicity, would be the
homeotic shift. I think that would be an ideal test, and it has not been widely
used, maybe because teratogenicity is not so much of a human problem.
Q: Okay.
Well, I was reading one article that was comparing the mouse spot test
with transgenic animal assays, and basically they were -- this goes to the
question of what have recombinant DNA techniques in light of this revolution in
molecular biology really done to the field of mutagenesis? And the argument was that the mouse spot test
was coming out -- it had to be large-scale, it was very intensive, where the
transgenic approach would be less costly and less space intensive. So how have these revolutions changed the
field?
A: I really have not had that with the
Blue Mouse® thing. But I know that there
were a lot of instances when I was still more up to date in it where it was not
that predictive. It's bacterial genes,
for one thing, it's not mammalian genes.
Plus, it doesn't really do much for larger lesions. It'll pick up point mutations, but it won't
even pick up deletions, and the spot test does.
So it picks up a broader spectrum.
And a lot of these chemicals probably are clastogenic as well as
mutagenic, or maybe instead of mutagenic.
So you want to have the capability of picking up larger lesions, which
the Blue Mouse® does not.
And the spot test is not -- it's not
that expensive. I mean, you don't need a very large population of mice. Well, it's a little labor intensive because
you have to have timed pregnancies, so from that point of view it's more -- the
triclosan that I told you about, the soap, that was done with a spot test.
|
X. Teratogenesis;
Collaboration with Harwell Lab; Privatized Funding; Patents
Q: I want to kind of pursue a tangent here
which I thought about when you said that teratogenesis really isn't a hot thing
anymore. Many critics of the Human
Genome Project said the primacy of the gene has made all other kinds of genetic
approaches -- and particularly privileges the gene over say environment
influences and expression of phenotype.
You can approach this from what chemicals or what other factors,
radiation, influence mutation rates. How
do you see this thing that had culminated, this ideology of the primacy of the
gene that culminated in the human genome project affecting the field and the
kinds of attention that's drawn to your work, the kinds of funding that was
brought to your work?
A: Well, teratogenicity is largely
avoided, I think, by just telling pregnant women not to do certain things. But, of course, if you don't know what normal
chemicals do. It is a human
problem. But you would be surprised at
how many people confuse a genetic cause for the teratogens. I would have to
explain it over and over that -- even to people -- I even had to instruct Irene
[A.] Uchida about
that sometimes, just the idea that something is a birth defect does not mean
it's genetic necessarily, does not mean it's a mutation-caused thing. But people don't often think about that, I
mean, if you come at it empirically, if you're not testing something. Just because you pick it up as a birth
defect, it's not a mutation necessarily.
Q: Right.
Are you familiar with F. Clarke Fraser's
work?
A: Yes, but not recently. I have not kept up. He's in Canada still?
Q: Yes, and he's fairly retired. He also had very similar things to say about
teratogens, because that's what he considers himself to be.
A: What kind of things does -- he says
that a birth defect could be --?
Q: Yes.
He approaches it from a clinical genetics point of view, being trained
as a pediatrician. I want to go back
just a little bit to something you said at the very beginning when we started
taping, and that was there's been some work done on [Medical Research Council
Radiobiology Unit at] Harwell, the specific locus test work that they were
trying to set up at the same time that you were trying, and you were
collaborators. They also had the same
similar mandate from the British government to explore the effects of radiation
on genes. How well did that collaboration
[work]?
A: Well, it was very interesting. The group that started out at Harwell had
been at [University of] Edinburgh [Institute of Animal Genetics], and they had
started some radiation mutagenesis while they were still at Edinburgh, mostly
clastogenic stuff. But then they got
T.[Toby] C. Carter, who headed up the mutagenesis. He was a very competitive guy. At one point -- well, when they did set up in
Harwell, we sent them our specific locus stock so we would all be working on
the same inbred strains for the radiation.
I can't remember exactly, but that's also in
those files of storage. I think they
were still at Edinburgh when he accused Bill of stealing the idea for some of
their experiments. Of course, you didn't
have to have any great ideas, you had to have a past and that was already
there. But then your ideas were whether
you should do low dose, or whatever. You
didn't have to be a genius to have any idea of what to do.
Anyhow, somehow he accused Bill, and that got
into all sorts of bureaucratic levels, practically a war between -- the,
whatever it is, the MST that funds – that communicated with the Atomic Energy
Commission and they had all these things at bureaucratic levels. Bill really had almost a nervous breakdown
over this. He was very thin-skinned
about stuff like that. I remember
sometime during that time that I decided the only way to get him out of his
near-depression was to -- I went back and researched all the correspondence and
all the meeting there had been and got it all documented, and I finally was
able to document the fact that Bill didn't steal any thoughts.
But that was a real to-do. That was just Toby Carter, and when he left,
everything was fine. We all got along
fine. He went into some kind of a strange industry, I can't remember what it
was. It was some breeding-related
industry. But that was really a
one-person thing. Everybody else at
Harwell was fine.
Q: What happened to the projects at
Harwell?
A: Well, the person who did some of the
specific locus mouse work was Tony [Anthony G.] Searle, who is a wonderful
guy. We've been the best of
friends. We're still friends now. The last time I was in England I went to see
him. We always had these very amicable
relations with Tony Searle. Now, Mary
Lyon did some specific locus work, too, and she was much more competitive, but
not at the level of T.C. Carter.
Something else at Harwell that I was
going to tell you about, but I can't remember.
Oh, this is not Harwell but Neuherberg.
Udo [H.] Ehling, who set up the big mutagenesis work in Neuherberg, had
been here in the sixties, at the beginning of the chemical mutagenesis
work. In fact, he was the one who did
most of the chemical mutagenesis work here.
The idea was that he was probably going to join our staff, but then he
had this great offer. They offered him
the earth. They're really generous in
Germany, they have tons of money. So he
took that job there.
Again, he took our stocks so we would have a
-- unfortunately, the treated parent is a hybrid between two inbred strains,
which is a C3H [Coumarate 3 Hydroxylase strain], which is a long established strain, and
the 101 [strain]. Well, something
happened in Neuherberg. They made the
wrong matings, and the 101 got contaminated from the C3H. They discovered that sometime later. So they ended up calling that stock the 102
[strain], but it's not anything -- it's got the C3H genes in there, and it's
been inbred since then, but God knows whether it's more like the 101. And they're probably not even doing specific
locus work anymore.
Q: Okay.
A couple other areas I wanted to talk about briefly, and that was, it's
not unusual now to see at the bottom of the page who provided the funding for
the work, but at the time that you were initially coming out in the late
forties and early fifties, and you have Union Carbide on all of your papers and
the Atomic Energy Commission, what impact did you think that would have on the
reception of your work, that you were being sponsored by one, basically an
extension of the military. It's seen
differently now, but at that point it was certainly seen as an extension of the
military. And that you were being funded
or sponsored by a private or corporation.
A: I personally didn't worry too much
about it, but I think it did give that impression to some people. At meetings, they would sometimes look down
upon -- not so much the fact that it was the military, but the fact that here
we had all this funding from government, and here they were struggling at some
academic institution. So you sometimes
got this thing that said, well, no wonder you guys can do good work, you're
just loaded with money.
I think it was more that kind of thing. I don't think most people thought that our
work was influenced by the fact that the funding came from these sources, but
there was this sort of -- you know, it's a lower level kind of work because
they don't have to worry about being good because they're going to have all
that money from the government.
Q: And because of the specific
methodologies in the specific locus tests and the mouse spot tests, have either
of you considered taking out patents or getting some kind of proprietary --
A: We never thought of that, and I think
if we had, the patent would have gone to the AEC. But you don't do that in science, you don't
take out a patent.
Q: Well, they do now, right?
A: They do now, right.
Q: That's what I wanted to ask. It's not unusual now to have large corporate
labs publishing in the same journals as academic institutions. And there's still a perception that the kind
of work that's done in the private sector is different than the public sector,
like an academic institution. Have you
experienced a difference in reception from at the time when you were unusual by
having these private sector connections--
A: Oh, like when we had the triclosan?
Q: Yes.
And now when it's quite common and not unusual to have private-public
collaboration.
A: I think at the time it was more
me. I was a little leery. I didn't want to have private sector
funding. I thought it would taint
us. I think it was -- I don't know how
the triclosan thing came to me, probably through one of the committees I was
on. But I didn't want to do
anymore. I didn't really get very much
pressure from them, only in the sense that they wanted it finished in a
hurry. They didn't try to influence the
outcomes or anything. They would call me
every week, how are you coming, how's it going, that kind of thing. I didn't even want that anymore. But they certainly didn't try to influence
the outcomes. I just didn't want to have
anymore private sector funding. But
Waldi Generoso had to take quite a bit because it was his bread and butter.
Q: One of the hallmarks in the history of
mammalian genetics is the creation of the OncoMouse® by
Harvard [University]. How did you react
to the ability of researchers to take out a patent on a mouse?
A: I don't like it very much, but I'm
probably very old-fashioned, because you said that's done a lot now.
Q: What is it specifically could you say
that is not good about it?
A: Because I think that anything that's
developed through a scientific experiment belongs to science, without anybody
becoming rich on it.
Q: Well, you've witnessed many changes over
the course of your career. We were just
talking about the revolutions in techniques and the kind of science that's
produced and the pace at which it's produced.
What impact do you think the privatization, so to speak, or --
privatization of scientific knowledge, I'll use that term, has had on the
field?
A: I honestly don't know. I don't know whether it has any
influence. I'm looking at it mostly from
an ethical or moral point of view rather than from a practical. Whether it would have a practical impact in
increasing the rate at which science progresses or not -- I mean, it does in
the sense that it has some positive effect in the way it gets funding more
easily. But whether it's subsequent to
the patent, whether it slows things down, I don't know.
|
XI. Closing Remarks;
Efforts in Environmental Conservation
Q: Okay. We'll begin to wrap things up. I'm going to be jumping back and forth across
time. When the project here at Oak Ridge
was set up, there was a bit of a debate because the ABCC [Atomic Bomb Casualty
Commission] which
became part of the AEC --
A: Oh, yes. Oh, wait a minute. I'm thinking of something else. What were you talking about there?
Q: [James V.] Neel's
and [W. Jack] Schull's
and [Newton E.] Morton's and [Duncan J.] McDonald's
work in Hiroshima and Nagasaki looking at radiation effects on the survivors of
the atomic bombs.
A: Oh, yes.
Q: There was some argument as to whether
those would be funded. I wanted to know
-- because the other was this project here, which I think Jim [James F.] Crow
and Bill [Russell] and several others said this would be a better approach to
it because it was more experimentally rigorous, and the results would be more
reliable. How involved were you in these
debates between whether the AEC should be funding different projects,
particularly this one on a human populations, which was questionable what kind
of results they would get.
A: Bill was much more involved than
I. I was never so much into the hazard
thing. He was on a lot of committees
that were trying to work out the risk levels and allowable doses, and so
on. So he was very much more into the
ABCC. I think the thing that always
impressed us was that so little came out of it, that we had to go around
explaining that really radiation did cause mutations, because they didn't for a
long time detect any effect, any genetic effect on the human population, and it
seemed likely that they wouldn't. You
can tell people that with the level of mutagenicity that we found in the mouse,
that level would be very hard to detect in humans. So it wasn't that humans were insusceptible
to it, and that was really a frequent part of Bill's talk. There really are mutations being induced in
humans. It's just awfully hard to show.
Of course, Neel was pushing the --
oh, gosh -- the 2D gel [two dimensional gel electrophoresis]
thing, so for some time there was some pressure on us to use 2D gels, but it's
just very time consuming and very little positive outcome as to what kind of
mutation would really move a spot from here to here.
I don't know what really turned out
to be the most fruitful approach in the Japanese studies, because then Seymour
Abrahamson went and headed that. As far
as I know -- do you know what happened while Seymour was there?
Q: No, I don't.
A: But Bill had had a conflict also that I
was totally out of, on what was called the ABCW [hypothesis]
[Seymour] Abrahamson, [Michael A.] Bender, [Alan D.] Conger, and [Sheldon]
Wolff, because of their interpretation of the dose rate effect was that it was a
two-hit phenomenon, and that's why you were getting essentially a
quadratic. Bill was saying, no, it was
the repair effect in the mitotic cells, and these are not two-hit
phenomenon. So they had really
contentious debates.
Q: Put this in a context for me as how
revolutionary was it to think that there were DNA repair mechanisms?
A: Well, at the time that he postulated
it, there really hadn't been any. I
mean, it's since become a huge field, but that was really the first time to say
this looks like it's a premutational repair.
And whether it's a two-hit thing or not, it's true that a fair
percentage of mutations are deletions, but most of them are such small
deletions that they do not require two-hit phenomenon. So I think from that point of view they were
probably not right.
Q: Then just to return to this whole
period, the beginning period, when you were doing your work, how conscious were
you about the political implications of your work?
A: Only in the sense that I aroused the
ire of all these radiologists when I showed the teratogenetic effects. But
other than that, my own work really had not very many political implications.
Q: Okay.
And when you began your genetic studies, because you looked at it from
an embryological developmental biology point of view but also a genetic point
of view, how much did developmental -- let me put it this way. What was the relationship between the field
of genetics and developmental biology at the time you were doing your early
work, and how has that changed?
A: I think there was quite a lot of
interrelation. There was all the work of
L.C. Dunn
and Salome [Gluecksohn-] Waelsh. There were a lot of mammalian geneticists
whose work had strong developmental components, and of course in Drosophila,
too. As far as I know, that has stayed
very strong. And even more so now with
the ability to analyze specific genes, effects of specific genes at various
developmental stages, the whole Hox [gene]
clusters, for example. It's become, in a
way, even more developmentally oriented.
Q: Okay.
Well, a couple more questions and I can wrap it up. Given that you kind of grew up in a period,
or you worked in an area of genetics that was highly politicized at the end of
World War II, and even the environment in which you worked was somewhat
politicized, what do you think now is the nature of social and/or ethical
issues confronting the field of mammalian genetics?
A: What is the major political issue of
what?
Q: Ethical or social issue affecting mammalian
genetics, the field of mammalian genetics.
A: Oh.
[pause] Well, I suppose you would be talking about things like stem cell
cloning. Probably that's -- I wouldn't
call it social, I would call it benighted.
I think that is a big political influence on what kind of research is
done.
Q: And how have you personally experienced
that?
A: Only in the sense of Rick Woychik's
work, because that was really the first -- not the first but the early parts of
us doing stem cell work. And people here
are doing it. I don't know how much
government funding they're getting. I think it's all on NIH grants. I personally have not, only through my
colleagues. But I think that's where you
get most political influence on the work.
Q: It seems to me that environment has been
an important factor in where you have done your research. You started at the Jackson Labs and now
you're at Oak Ridge. They're both very
isolated, very much integrated into a nice environment. They try not to be such a blight within the
natural landscape. But they have been
relatively isolated from say major centers, like Boston or New York or Chicago,
where many universities are doing much research. How important is environment for you in
conducting science?
A: Well, of course, I don't know -- this
is something I haven't touched on at all, but since the mid-sixties I have had
a major outside work, and this is when we started this group that I gave you
the newsletter of. That began in the
mid-1960s. It probably took as much time
away from research as my kids did. By
that time, they were pretty grown. So
that took the place of having young kids and really taking off a great deal of
time. Because we were mostly fighting
emergencies and crises. We were fighting
dam proposals and strip mining and things like that. So it isn't something you can say, oh, I'm
going to do that next year because it was a crisis right now, and you really
had to be very actively involved. So
that took a great deal of my time, but I think it's an environment that's very
worth saving. It is really, really
unusual.
Q: And what is the connection between your
passion for science and your passion for the environment?
A: My passion?
Q: Yeah.
For science and for the environment.
A: Well, I don't know. I think, in a sense, the environment is a
stronger passion because some of these things probably couldn't survive without
me, and I think science could probably get along without me. Certainly now. I certainly cannot contribute very much to
science at this point.
Q: Although you did retire, I think,
formally in 2002, and yet you're still publishing papers as early as last
month.
A: Yeah, I'm still publishing. After getting that contributed paper
rejected, I'm wondering whether I should anymore.
Q: Okay.
Well, my last question for you is, looking back over your career, what
has been the most personally interesting work you've done, and why was it so
interesting?
A: There're so many. I think I would start
probably with the X chromosome and the sex determination. That was very interesting. Then I think the things that got out of the
complementation work, the genetics small structure mapping. My interest in mosaics and the various ways
in which I have approached that. I would
say those are probably the three most -- to me, the most satisfying phases of
my work.
Q: Okay.
Well, I've come to the end of my questions. I'll turn it over to you and what would you
like to talk about that we haven't?
A: I was just going to ask you. Did I ever send you a complete list of
publications?
Q: No.
You sent me an abbreviated form, but I went on PubMed and --
A: I will Xerox that for you. Are there any that you would like the
reprints of? Because if you do, they're
in storage, but I can get them.
Q: Okay.
Actually, we do need to talk about that a little bit before I leave, but
we can do that after we finish taping.
Anything else you'd like to talk about?
A: No, it's just that I think that your
project is fascinating to me, because so many of the people that you have already
interviewed are people that I know, know of at least. It'll be great to see the whole thing.
Q: Well, can I insert one last question
that I meant to ask and I didn't, and that was, could you compare and contrast
C.C. Little's style of administration with Hollaender's? I know that you had very little -- you were
basically a graduate student research assistant at Jackson Lab, but could you
compare and contrast their styles?
A: You know, I personally didn't
experience so much of C.C. Little, because by the time I became a student, he
was fairly -- I was a student, I didn't have that much to do with him. But I had the feeling that he was much more
congenial as far as the people who worked there. He as more trying to be one of the guys, and
Hollaender was trying to be more like -- he was German. He was trying to be more like a Prussian --
not even a general, but a sergeant -- he would do things like trying to find
out who was pregnant so he could be sure that that person wasn't going to be
working too long and that there would be a replacement, and all this kind of
stuff.
There was a famous pink room revolution when
he -- there was a ladies room in the Y-12 facility that had pink walls, and he
was keeping track of how long people stayed in there, the technicians, because
that was time spent away from work. He
had the idea that they were in there reading or gossiping or something, instead
of working. So he kept track of how long
people spent in the pink room. And
people got very upset. That was the pink
room revolution.
He was very much into people's personal lives
from the point of view of whether they really did the work, and very upset with
people who didn't publish much, but instead of trying to find out why, he would
sort of give them hell. He was very,
very different that way from C.C. Little.
But he was a genius at building up the division, making it very
internationally known, and really encouraging good people, and getting
money. It was just his personal style
that was very different.
Q: So Oak Ridge was essentially a town in
and of itself. The laboratory was a city
in and of itself, it sounds like.
A: Yeah.
Q: In which he tried to organize both the
private lives and the professional lives of everybody who worked there?
A: Oh, yeah. They were all like his children, and he was
really going to be a strict father to make sure they did well in the
world. Very interesting guy. That magazine has a picture of him. I don't
know if you saw it.
Q: Yes, I did. Okay. Well, I think that should wrap it up.
A: Okay.
Q: I really appreciate you taking the time
to do this interview, and it's been certainly my pleasure to talk to you.
A: Well it as fun. Thank you.
End
interview
|
|