The Paulings in Latin America, 1940s – 1950s

La Prensa, (Mexico City) September 6, 1949.

[Part 1 of 5]

Throughout his long career as a scientist and peace advocate, Linus Pauling’s work took him all over the world, not excluding Latin America, to which he traveled multiple times. In fact, of the nineteen countries which today constitute Latin America, the only ones which Pauling did not visit were Ecuador, Honduras, Paraguay and Uruguay.

During his trips to the southern hemisphere he typically gave speeches on familiar topics including hemoglobin, the architecture of molecules, orthomolecular medicine, nuclear weapons and, of course, vitamin C. He also frequently advocated for human rights, speaking out against the incarceration of intellectuals in Argentina in the 1960s, urging the leaders of Latin America to resist the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and stressing the necessity for world peace and cooperation. Along the way, Pauling also received many awards, including membership in the Chilean Chemistry Society, the National Medal of the Chilean Senate and honorary citizenship of Puerto Rico.

In September 1949, on one of his earliest trips to Latin America, Pauling traveled to Mexico City to attend the Western Continental Congress for Peace. At the conference, Pauling delivered an address as the United States delegate, as well as a second speech titled, “Man – An Irrational Animal.”

In his delegate’s address, Pauling pointed out that the purpose of the conference was to work towards “permanent, world-wide peace” as well as to foster more effective cooperation between the people of the Americas. From his perspective as a scientist, Pauling felt that he could see order everywhere in the natural world, except for the seeming self-destructiveness of the human race. Pauling felt that the fight for peace included the fight for human rights, and that it was every individual’s responsibility to contribute. However, he believed that scientists should play a special role, suggesting that “the world looks to science for the ultimate solution of the threatening natural problems that menace it.”

At the Mexico City conference, Pauling also argued that scientists needed more freedom in order to focus their energy on solving problems such as world hunger, rather than on the preparation for and conducting of war. He likewise stressed that the United Nations needed to be more powerful, so that it could not be dominated by one or two great powers. To do this, Pauling rationalized, participating nations should transfer part of their sovereignty to the UN in order to form a democratic world government. At the end of the address, Pauling again stressed that world peace must be a democratic and collective undertaking, proclaiming that

It is we, the people, who now have the duty of working for peace, for the welfare and happiness of human beings everywhere. If another devastating world war comes, it will be because we, the people of the world, have failed. We must not fail.

On the same day that he delivered his address as a delegate, Pauling also gave a second speech “Man – An Irrational Animal.” In this talk, he reiterated his “deep interest in the structure of the material world,” and appreciation of the harmony and the workings of nature, but again suggested that the world of man was an anomaly to nature’s pattern of balance and structure. Pauling lamented that “we see groups of men, who make up the nations of the world, devoting the material wealth of the world and the intellectual powers of man, the ‘rational’ animal, not for the welfare of mankind, but for destruction.”

He attributed most of the problems that existed during the time to the struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States, pointing out that nearly ten percent of the world’s income was being used for war or preparation for war. He also stressed that, in the U. S., the fear of communism or any form of liberal thought was prohibiting many scientists from finding work in universities and the private sector alike. Pauling’s solution to the problems of the era was to propose that more funds be channeled toward UNESCO’s peace efforts, and that less be spent on war.

Pauling’s participation in the Mexico City assembly managed to rankle both the U. S. government as well as his fellow delegates.  As it turns out, unbeknownst to Pauling, the Western Continental Congress for Peace was  a Communist-organized gathering, and was accurately criticized as such back home.  In biographer Thomas Hager‘s words,

…that, of course, did not bother the Paulings.  They loved Mexico City – Ava Helen was becoming an admirer of folk art from around the world and spent time combing the mercados for pieces to add to her collection – but were less enthusiastic about the meeting, which seemed to consist of speech after long-winded speech defending the Soviet Union and attacking the United States.  His keynote address ranged from standard socialist anti-imperialism…to a purposeful and carefully evenhanded denouncement of both the United States’ and USSR’s policies of curtailing freedom and preparing for war.  The audience, expecting another one-sided attack on the Yankees, responded with lukewarm applause.

Pauling’s next visit to Latin America came about in May 1955, when Linus and Ava Helen were invited to a conference at the University of Puerto Rico by the Chancellor of the University, Jaime Benitez. At the meeting, Pauling gave three speeches: “The Hemoglobin Molecule in Health and Disease,” “The Structure of Proteins,” and “Technology and Democracy.”

Ava Helen and Linus Pauling posing with an unidentified group. Los Canos, Puerto Rico, 1955.

In “Technology and Democracy” – of the three, the only talk that he did not give on a regular basis to many other groups – Pauling commented that it was impossible for people to consider themselves “cultured” if they did not know about the sciences as well as about the rest of the world. He argued that “non-scientists, too, should be people of culture who have an understanding of the world, and this they cannot be without a knowledge of science.” Pauling also urged that more science be included in the curricula of elementary schools, and at a more advanced level. Pauling felt that people should be more interested in science because “knowledge of the nature of the world in which we live contributes to our happiness.”

Pauling’s trips to Mexico and Puerto Rico were just the beginning of an extensive political and scientific relationship that he maintained with Latin America.  In the coming weeks, we will take a closer look at several of his Ava Helen’s many visits to countries south of the border, from the 1960s through the 1980s.

John Yudkin, Linus Pauling and the Sugar Question

“In my book I say you shouldn’t eat sweet desserts, but I also quote a professor who says that this doesn’t mean that if your hostess has made this wonderful dessert you should turn it down.  My wife used to say I always looked for that hostess.“

-Linus Pauling, 1987.

Linus Pauling and John Yudkin shared a semisweet bond that was nearly equal parts contradiction, respect and humor, and which lasted from the mid-1970s until Pauling’s death in 1994. The two men held radically different views on a number of topics including the effects of vitamins, especially vitamin C, but shared an identical view on the dangers of sugar. Indeed, Yudkin’s claims in his 1976 book This Nutrition Business that Pauling’s beliefs about vitamin C were completely incorrect did not deter Pauling from citing Yudkin’s work on sugar in a favorable light in How to Live Longer and Feel Better, published ten years later.

John Yudkin was born in London in 1910, earned a degree in chemistry and a Ph. D in biochemistry, and later studied medicine in London. As the Chair of Physiology at London University at Queen Elizabeth College, he persuaded the university to institute a Department of Nutrition in 1954, the first department in Europe devoted to undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and research in nutrition. In 1954 Yudkin became the Chair of Nutrition for Queen Elizabeth College. In the 1960s, he grew increasingly concerned with the role of nutrition in western afflictions like obesity and diabetes, and spoke of the problem of “the malnutrition of affluence.” Yudkin retired from Queen Elizabeth College in 1971, and became Emeritus Professor of Nutrition.

Pauling first commented on Yudkin’s work – chiefly his book Sugar: Sweet and Dangerous – in a 1972 article for the newsletter Executive Health. In it, Pauling summarized Yudkin’s belief that sugar is an important cause of coronary heart disease, and that saturated fat and cholesterol are not. He also described a study carried out by Yudkin in 1957, in which the death rate from coronary disease in fifteen countries was correlated in relation to the average intake of sugar. The study concluded that men consuming relatively large amounts of sucrose faced far greater odds of developing heart disease in the age range of 45 to 65, than did those who did not ingest as much sucrose. Pauling agreed with Yudkin’s findings that sugar not only provided “empty calories,” but also contributed to various diseases.

In 1976 Pauling received a copy of Chapter 12 of Yudkin’s book, This Nutrition Business, in the mail.  In this chapter, titled “What You Can Expect from Vitamins,” Yudkin stated that Pauling’s claims about vitamin C were untrue. Yudkin suggested that the human body needs a certain amount of vitamins and no more, and that to ingest more vitamins than are required is a waste – thinking that was common at the time. He added that he knew Pauling personally and thought of him as warm and friendly, but also that “I think sincerely that he is wrong in most of what he says about vitamin C and about the use in large amounts of this and other vitamins in the preservation of health and in the treatment of disease.”

He then proceeded to find fault in Pauling’s argument that the best diet is one of raw fruits and vegetables; a diet that would provide roughly the same amounts of vitamin C that humans consumed millions of years ago. Yudkin instead argued that humans have subsisted on an omnivorous diet for at least two million years, and that if they really weren’t ingesting enough vitamin C they would have died off long ago.

The year after Yudkin wrote about Pauling in his book, Pauling – in what may have been a retaliation of sorts – singled out Yudkin as an example of subjective reporting on nutrition.  Pauling mailed his editorial “Needed: More Responsibility, More Objectivity, Less Bias,” to Yudkin along with a short note telling him that he was sorry to have to use him as an example, and that he hoped Yudkin would “get around to examining the evidence about nutrition in relation to disease in an unbiased and responsible way sooner or later.” Yudkin answered Pauling with a terse note informing him that his views were simply different, and that Pauling should not accuse people of being biased and irresponsible just because they had differences of opinion.

It was clear by 1986 that all was forgiven, when Pauling cited Yudkin extensively in his book How to Live Longer and Feel Better.  In Chapter 6, Pauling discussed Yudkin’s book Sugar: Sweet and Dangerous, in which Yudkin demonstrated that ingesting sucrose leads to coronary disease. According to Pauling,

Against the general public acceptance of the proposition that coronary heart disease is caused by a high intake of animal fat (saturated fat) and the eating of foods containing cholesterol, Yudkin himself has shown that for some countries the correlation of coronary disease with intake of sugar is much better than that with intake of fat.

Pauling later commented that “It has been shown in a trustworthy clinical study that the ingestion of sucrose leads to an increase in the cholesterol concentration in the blood.” The trustworthy study of which he speaks was reported by Milton Winitz along with his associates in 1964 and 1970. This investigation studied eighteen prisoners who had volunteered to be locked into an institution for about six months and have their cholesterol levels recorded as they were fed a specific diet. After a preliminary period, the group was placed on a small-molecule diet made up of seventeen amino acids, a little fat, vitamins, essential minerals, and glucose.  From there, more sucrose was added back into the diet.  During the length of the study, the group’s cholesterol levels were closely monitored.

The average cholesterol concentration during the initial period, during which the subjects had been fed a standard Western diet, had been 227 milligrams per deciliter. After two weeks on the glucose diet, the average concentration dropped to 173 and, two weeks later, to 160. After that point, a quarter of the glucose in the subjects’ diet was replaced by sucrose. In a week the average cholesterol concentration was 178, and two weeks later it had risen to 208. The glucose was then added back into the diet, replacing the sucrose, and results were evident in one week, when the average cholesterol concentration dropped to 175, and kept dropping afterward to points even lower than the 160 initially recorded. In his book, Pauling stated that this study “shows conclusively that an increased intake of sucrose leads to an increased level of blood cholesterol.”

At the end of Chapter 6, Pauling concurs with Yudkin and gives advice to the reader regarding sugar. His first admonition is to keep away from the sugar bowl – to keep it out of your coffee or tea. He also warns against prepared, frosted breakfast cereals, and to keep away from any regular intake of sweet desserts. His last piece of advice is to avoid soft drinks. In a different section of the book, Pauling advises, as part of a regimen for better health, to “keep your intake of ordinary sugar (sucrose, raw sugar, brown sugar, honey) to 50 pounds per year, which is half the present U.S. average.” (By 2003, Americans were consuming 142 pounds per year, on average.)

In December 1987, Pauling was interviewed for the magazine Outside for an article that focused specifically on his views on sugar. In it, Pauling is quoted as saying, “the increasing incidence of [coronary] disease closely parallels the increasing consumption of sugar. It is not at all correlated with the consumption of animal fat (saturated fat) or of total fat.” With this, Pauling reaffirmed his support for Yudkin’s viewpoint that sucrose is the primary culprit behind cardiovascular disease.

In 1989 Yudkin visited Pauling in person and, shortly thereafter, sent to Pauling a copy of his latest book Pure, White and Deadly. In thanking Yudkin for the book, Pauling asked if he would be willing to serves as a member of the Board of Associates of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine. He also asked for a biographical sketch to be run in the Institute’s newsletter, and likewise asked for permission to reprint parts of the book in the publication.

Yudkin eventually agreed to join the Board of Associates (once assured by Pauling that his joining would not involve any work, since he had too much already) and provided a biographical sketch along with a letter in which he joked that he had “excluded such interesting aspects of my life as what clothes I wear, what I have for breakfast…”  Little bits of humor such as these dot the correspondence between the two men, who maintained a friendly relationship despite their occasional public disputes.

In a memo relaying news of Yudkin’s appointment to the Board, Pauling noted that “[i]t was Yudkin’s work that caused me to make my strong recommendations about decreasing the intake of sucrose.” Pauling also obtained copies of Pure, White and Deadly to distribute to members of the Institute, and continued to promote the book in the LPISM newsletter. Clearly, although Yudkin contradicted Pauling’s strong arguments in support of vitamin C, Pauling saw the logic in Yudkin’s case against sugar and stood firmly behind it.

Is Sugar a Poison?

[Ed Note: This is part one of a two part investigation into contemporary thinking on sugar.  Today's post focuses on recent discussions while part two will provide Linus Pauling's perspective as well as that of an important contemporary.]

After watching Robert Lustig’s lecture “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” posted on YouTube in July 2009, viewers are sure to sympathize more with their livers, and with Lustig’s persuasive evidence that sugar is a toxin. Robert H. Lustig, M.D., is a professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, who, over the course of a 90-minute discussion on fructose, glucose and the body’s reaction to them, aims to convince the public that sugar is not just bad for us, it is toxic.

Lustig begins his engaging lecture by arguing that the reason why Americans are getting fatter is because our bodies aren’t telling us when we’re full. The hormone leptin, which signals satiety, must be malfunctioning, he says, because now we’re just eating more food. It is true that portion sizes used to be smaller, he admits, but food was just as available twenty years ago as it is now. Fat isn’t the culprit either, because we eat fewer calories from fat now than we did in the 1980s, yet obesity is still rising.

One component of the problem is what Lustig calls the “Coca-Cola Conspiracy”: Coca-Cola has become saltier, which makes you thirsty, but the salt is masked by added sugar, so the taste buds do not detect extra salt. Likewise, more caffeine has been added, providing energy but also working as a diuretic.  As a result of the added caffeine and salt, you are actually thirstier when you finish the Coca-Cola than when you started it, making you want more Coca-Cola. In the process, of course, you consume more sugar.

Robert Lustig being inteviewed by ABC News correspondent John Donvan. Credit: UC-San Francisco.

Sugar is bad, but the main crux of Lustig’s argument is that fructose in particular is a poison. Sucrose, or table sugar, is made up of 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose; the glucose is metabolized by every cell in the body, while the fructose is metabolized solely by the liver. High-fructose corn syrup, or H.F.C.S., is made up of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose. Lustig, however, makes no distinction between sucrose and H.F.C.S., saying that both should be included in the discussion about sugar since both are processed by the body the same way.

According to Lustig, President Richard Nixon’s 1973 campaign to decrease the price of food is partly to blame for spurring the advent and popularity of H.F.C.S.  For one, H.F.C.S. is both cheaper and sweeter than sucrose, so manufacturers eventually used it more than sugar, advertising it as the healthy, natural alternative. What added to the problem, Lustig says, was the campaign by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association in 1972 to cut down on fat in the American diet. This effectively diminished the amounts of fat that we ate, but did not solve the problem: “The fat’s going down, the sugar’s going up, and we’re all getting sick.” In Lustig’s view, it became apparent rather quickly that a low-fat, high-carb diet tasted like “crap,” so sugar was added to make it more palatable to the consumer’s tastebuds.

Lustig spends about fifteen minutes of his presentation giving a biochemistry lesson demonstrating that glucose and fructose are not the same thing, and also showing all the adverse physiological effects of fructose. From there, he returns to the claim made at the beginning of his lecture, which is that Americans are gaining weight because we don’t feel full. The problem with fructose, says Lustig, is that it does not stimulate insulin, and if the insulin levels do not rise, leptin is not activated, thus your brain does not receive the message that you are full. On the contrary, thanks to the unresponsiveness of the insulin, the brain receives the message that the body is starving.

Adding to the “evil” of fructose is its similarity to ethanol. Ethanol is just fermented sugar, and fructose is “ethanol without the buzz,” as Lustig puts it. The only difference, according to Lustig, is that ethanol is metabolized by the brain, causing central nervous system depression, hypothermia, hypoglycemia and loss of fine motor control, to name a few adverse effects. Fructose, on the other hand, is not metabolized by the brain at all. Further, ethanol is regulated by the government because it is considered a toxin, while sugar is not seen as dangerous. Yet, according to Lustig, chronic sugar exposure causes conditions such as hypertension, myocardial infarction, obesity, fetal insulin resistance and other assorted health problems. Fructose and ethanol are metabolized the same way by the body, but it is chronic exposure to fructose that leads to adverse effects, while with ethanol, the effects are more immediately apparent.

So what is the solution to obesity? Lustig, who treats obese children, prescribes four aspects of “lifestyle intervention” that work: a diet containing carbohydrates with fiber; no sugared beverages; following the “Paleolithic diet,” which contains mostly raw foods and no grains; and exercise.

---

Journalist Gary Taubes provides more insight on Lustig’s lecture in his New York Times article “Is Sugar Toxic?” published on April 13, 2011. Taubes has spent much of the last decade conducting journalistic research on diet and chronic diseases, and agrees with Lustig, noting, “[i]f I didn’t buy this argument myself, I wouldn’t be writing about it here.” Taubes agrees with Lustig that the problem with sugar lies not with the calories that it contains, but with the way our bodies metabolize the fructose.

According to Taubes, in an experiment involving laboratory rats and mice, it was found that if enough fructose hit the liver quickly enough, the liver would convert most of it to fat. He reiterates Lustig’s conclusion that this process eventually results in insulin resistance, which is the fundamental problem in obesity and the underlying defect in heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. However, Taubes says, the Institute of Medicine published a report in 2005 which “acknowledged that plenty of evidence suggested that sugar could increase the risk of heart disease and diabetes…but did not consider the research to be definitive. There was enough ambiguity…that they couldn’t even set an upper limit on how much sugar constitutes too much.”

Gary Taubes

Taubes next discusses the correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes: in 1980, roughly one in seven Americans was obese while almost six million were diabetic. By the early 2000s, a third of Americans were obese, while fourteen million were diabetic. On the basis of this evidence, Taubes says, it is easy to blame the over-consumption of sucrose and H.F.C.S. for the increase in health problems, since peak times of sugar consumption often correlate with spikes in obesity and diabetes.

Sugar is also likely to cause heart disease, although Taubes acknowledges that it is usually dietary fat that is blamed. He notes that in most cases where evidence was presented that indicated dietary fat was a culprit in heart disease, sugar was ignored, even though sugar consumption could also have been a factor. For example, in the 1960s Elliott Joslin, a leading authority on diabetes, claimed that sugar did not cause diabetes because the Japanese ate lots of rice, which is mostly a carbohydrate, like sugar, and there are very few diabetics in Japan. However, he did not take into account that the Japanese also ate much less table sugar than did Americans and, as Taubes brings to our attention, he did not know that rice and sugar are metabolized differently by the body.

Taubes comments that the last time an academic claimed that sugar was a toxin was in the 1970s, when John Yudkin, an authority on nutrition in the United Kingdom and a colleague of Linus Pauling, published a book about sugar called Sweet and Dangerous. In it, Yudkin recounts a series of experiments that he conducted in which sugar and starch were fed to rodents, chickens, rabbits, pigs and college students. The trials found that sugar raised the blood levels of triglycerides, which is a risk factor for heart disease. Sugar also raised insulin levels, linking it to type 2 diabetes.

At the time Yudkin’s conclusions were criticized and his work was not taken seriously. By extension, other researchers who disparaged sucrose were often compared to Yudkin and dismissed. However, according to Taubes, in recent years “physicians and medical authorities came to accept the idea that a condition known as metabolic syndrome is a major, if not the major, risk factor for heart disease and diabetes.” Metabolic syndrome is a state in which the cells in one’s body actively ignore insulin, which happens when the pancreas becomes exhausted from pumping out insulin in response to rising blood sugar levels; in some cases, rising blood sugar levels result in diabetes. Other results of chronically elevated insulin levels are heart disease, higher triglyceride levels and blood pressure, and lower levels of HDL cholesterol, which makes the insulin resistance worse. This cycle is known as metabolic syndrome.

So, Taubes asks, what causes the initial insulin resistance? His answer is that “researchers who study the mechanisms of insulin resistance now think that a likely cause is the accumulation of fat in the liver.” Fatty livers are caused by genetic disposition, eating fatty foods, and by consuming fructose, since the liver converts fructose directly to fat if it is hit with a large amount all at once. Fructose is a “chronic toxin,” meaning that it is “not toxic after one meal, but after 1,000 meals.” As a result, conclusive evidence linking fructose to fatty livers will not be forthcoming until long-term studies are conducted.  And, according to Taubes, at this point no studies have been planned that span longer amounts of time.

Finally, Taubes discusses cancer’s link to metabolic syndrome and diabetes, saying, “you are more likely to get cancer if you’re obese or diabetic than if you’re not, and you’re more likely to get cancer if you have metabolic syndrome than if you don’t.” Both metabolic syndrome and diabetes are linked to the Western diet, and countries that do not follow the Western diet experience much lower rates of cancer. One population cited by Taubes are the Inuit in the Arctic, among whom breast cancer rates were almost non-existent until the 1980s. The connection given by cancer researches, Taubes says, is that insulin resistance leads to the secretion of more insulin, and insulin promotes tumor growth.

Taubes ends his article with the statement, “Sugar scares me…I’d like to eat it in moderation. I’d certainly like my two sons to be able to eat it in moderation, to not overconsume it, but I don’t actually know what that means, and I’ve been reporting on this subject and studying it for more than a decade.” Together, Lustig and Taubes paint a dreary picture of the world’s health if it continues to consume fructose: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and metabolic syndrome are the tangible consequences of the Western lifestyle, with Lustig’s explanation and Taubes’s analysis backing the claim that sugar is toxic.

Now Accepting Applications for 2012 Resident Scholars

The Oregon State University Libraries Special Collections & Archives Research Center (SCARC) is pleased to announce that applications are once again being solicited for the Resident Scholar Program.

Now in its fifth year, the Resident Scholar Program provides research grants to scholars interested in conducting work in the Special Collections & Archives Research Center. Stipends of $2,500 per month renewable for up to three months (for a total maximum grant award of $7,500) will be awarded to researchers whose proposals detail a compelling potential use of the materials held in the Center. Grant monies can be used for any purpose.

Researchers will be expected to conduct their scholarly activities while in residence at Oregon State University. Historians, librarians, graduate, doctoral or post-doctoral students and independent scholars are welcome to apply. The deadline for submitting proposals is April 30, 2012.

It is anticipated that applicants would focus their work on one of the four main collecting themes of the Special Collections & Archives Research Center: the history of Oregon State University, natural resources in the Pacific Northwest, multiculturalism in the Pacific Northwest and/or the history of science and technology in the twentieth century. For 2012, proposals that focus on using the history of science and technology collections will receive highest consideration, though proposals can address use of any of the SCARC collections.

Detailed information outlining the qualifications necessary for application, as well as the selection process and the conditions under which awards will be made, is available at the following location (PDF link): http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/residentscholar.pdf  Additional information on the program is available at the Resident Scholar homepage and profiles of past award recipients are available here.

Ryoichi Sasakawa

Ryoichi Sasakawa, his translator, Linus and Ava Helen Pauling, in Japan, 1980.

Ryoichi Sasakawa was among the most controversial of Linus Pauling’s many acquaintances.  To this day, opinions on Sasakawa tend to polarize: a politician, successful businessman and generous philanthropist, he was also considered by many to be a war criminal.  Many Japanese also referred to him as “kuromaku,” a shadowy force behind the visible power of a nation, because he had a hand in selecting two prime ministers and, as a result of his immense wealth, was a strongly influential player within Japanese politics. Sasakawa was also an avowed anti-communist and erstwhile admirer of Benito Mussolini.

Sasakawa himself admitted that he was a kuromaku – he thought them to be useful in a society where laws were ambiguous and law enforcement was weak. This impulse toward power was, however, couched in the rhetoric of equality – rhetoric that was backed up by vast amounts of charitable giving.  Especially in his later years, Sasakawa publicly espoused the notion that “the world is one family; all mankind are brothers and sisters,” an idea that guided him in his charity work.  Bringing peace to the masses became a stated life goal, and as a rich and powerful kuromaku, Sasakawa saw himself as well-equipped to redistribute resources to the poor and needy of the world.

---

Ryoichi Sasakawa was born in 1899 to a sake brewer and grew up in a Buddhist household. As a young man he was fascinated by airplanes to the point where he ran away from home to learn to fly and was eventually drafted as a pilot into the Japanese Air Force. He was discharged early from the service, having incurred a shoulder injury while working on an airplane. His military career ended, he returned to his hometown and founded the Konnichi Shimbun newspaper.

Coming from a respected family, having experience in the Air Force and professing a zeal for making things right in the world, Sasakawa became the Councilor of his village at the age of twenty-two. Quickly, he reformed the village council and eradicated a major drinking problem that was tainting the leadership of the village.

At the same time that he was dabbling in politics and the press, Sasakawa began accumulating his fortune by investing in the rice exchange. As his wealth began to grow, a business rival grew jealous and had Sasakawa arrested for “charges unknown.” In anticipation of such an event, Sasakawa had effectively sheltered his money before his arrest and emerged from the incident unscathed.

Not after long Sasakawa was released from prison, World War II engulfed the Pacific.  Already a successful regional leader, Sasakawa decided to involve himself further in the realm of national politics. Rather quickly, Sasakawa and Isoroku Yamamoto - the Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet during World War II and, over time, a friend of Sasakawa’s – came to be known as the the rightist leaders of the time. Both favored the ideals of fascism.

While Sasakawa and Yamamoto both spoke out against the outbreak of war, the two men were also strong patriots. As a result, the duo did all that they could to contribute to the success of Japan and its war effort. Notably, in 1932, Sasakawa became the leader of the nationalistic Volunteer Air Corps and “muscled in on a lucrative supply trade for the armed forces,” during the era of the Manchukuo government. These “supply trades” included traffic in both military goods and opium. In justifying his actions, Sasakawa stated, “once at war you must go all the way.”

Sasakawa was a strong advocate for Yamamoto, and because the United States viewed Yamamoto as a warmonger “bent on personally leading the Japanese forces into Washington,” the U.S. also put Sasakawa on its watch list.  With the defeat of Japan in 1945, Sasakawa’s support of Yamamoto, coupled with his extreme nationalism and his having been a “prime move[r] in developing Japan’s totalitarianism and aggression,” earned him the label of war criminal. Sasakawa was ordered by Douglas MacArthur’s General Headquarters to face the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, and did so with pride and cheering supporters. During his time in prison he became an icon for a segment of the Japanese public.

Sasakawa greeting card, 1980.

As punishment for his war activities, Sasakawa was sentenced to be hanged.  In 1948, however, he was released from prison for unknown reasons – the CIA is rumored to have played a role in his being freed.  By his own account, during his time in prison, Sasakawa made a vow that, if he survived his ordeal, he would dedicate his life to preventing war and seeking world peace. After his release he vowed to stay out of the politics for the remainder of his life. He wrote a resolution so as to further confirm this promise to himself and others. The opening paragraph of this resolution is as follows:

The most horrible sin on earth is killing, with war being the paramount example. Despite the dedicated efforts of numerous people in the cause to end all wars, human history has shown us nothing but a repetition of wars. We cannot possibly account for all the victims of wars to date, but the number would be unimaginable. The only way to allow the souls of the war dead to rest in peace is to bring about everlasting world peace and rid the earth forever of the horror of war, building a heaven on earth where all people can live in harmony as brothers and sisters. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone dedicated to this worthy cause is abiding by the will of Heaven and will enjoy eternal life. May God protect and lead us in our efforts to achieve an early realization of our goal.

While in prison Sasakawa also developed an interest in powerboat racing through reading magazines, and once released from prison he introduced motorboat racing and gambling to Japan, eventually founding the Japan Ship Promotion Company. He was able to accumulate trillions of yen annually as a result of the success of this new venture. He was also able to exploit legislative loopholes that aided him in preserving his fortune.

---

Bust of Sasakawa installed at the World Health Organization headquarters, undated.

Before he died in 1995, Sasakawa stepped up his efforts to help others in need and to “brighten his tarnished image,” especially by promoting good health. Over time Sasakawa’s Nippon Foundation, also known as the Japanese Shipbuilding Foundation, devoted substantial sums to a wide variety of health-related projects. Working with the United Nations, the World Health Organization and a host of other groups, the Foundation allocated tens of millions of dollars toward efforts to cure smallpox and leprosy, to control parasites and hunger in impoverished nations, to study population control worldwide and to provide disaster relief.

Sasakawa also worked with U.S. President Jimmy Carter to promote amicable relations among the world’s people through a project called The Friendship Force. He likewise created the B & G Foundation, which built exercise facilities in hopes of fostering sound minds and healthy bodies for young people. For his efforts he was, in 1975, awarded the presidency of the Japanese Science Society and, in 1980, given the Golden Heart Presidential Award by the President of the Philippines for his fight against leprosy.

Jimmy Carter, Ryoichi Sasakawa and Linus Pauling, 1986.

It was in this light that Sasakawa also chose to support Linus Pauling and his research on vitamin C. Having heard of Pauling’s work on the common cold, the flu and cancer, Sasakawa traveled to the U.S. in June 1980 to meet Pauling in person. While there, the two men discussed the possibility of initiating a program of research the focus of which would be fighting leprosy with vitamin C. Pauling suggested contacts elsewhere who might be able to pursue this line of work, though research of that type was not something that the Institute was equipped to support.

The meeting planted the seeds of a relationship and over the next decade, the two men corresponded frequently and visiting one another on several occasions.  In short order, Sasakawa became a generous supporter of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine. Beginning in 1981, the Japanese Shipbuilding Foundation pledged five million dollars over ten years to support the Institute’s research, primarily on vitamin C and cancer. The Institute also parlayed the Foundation’s support to establish the Sasakawa Aging Research Center, which used fruit flies to test theories of antioxidant protection against stress and in support of extending life span.

It is unclear just how aware Pauling was of Sasakawa’s past and reputation in Japan.  What is clear, however, is that Sasakawa’s funds were crucial to the Institute’s ability to remain financially viable during some very difficult years in the 1980s.  In acknowledgement of Sasakawa’s support, the Institute bestowed upon Sasakawa the 1983 Linus Pauling Medal for Humanitarianism, an award that was usually given to important financial backers.  More importantly, on at least six occasions in the 1980s, Linus Pauling nominated Ryoichi Sasakawa for the Nobel Peace Prize.  While Pauling often nominated multiple individuals for the award in a given year, and while his nominations in support of Sasakawa tended to be relatively brief, his formal support of Sasakawa for the award is an important detail for those seeking to understand the contours of the two men’s relationship.

Akira Murata

Akira Murata, 1975.

A year before being introduced to Fukumi Morishige‘s work, Linus Pauling was paying close attention to research being conducted by another Japanese colleague, Dr. Akira Murata, who was studying the inactivation of viruses by vitamin C.  Over the coming years, Morishige and Murata often worked together on research related to vitamin C.  And as with Morishige, Murata became a close colleague of Pauling’s, hosting him on numerous visits to Japan and, on at least a few occasions, traveling across the Pacific to visit Pauling in California.

Murata was born in Shimonoseki, Japan in 1935, and later attended Kyushu University, receiving his Ph.D. in microbiology in 1963.  In 1966 he accepted the position of Associate Professor at Saga University, where he has remained for the bulk of his career.

From early on, Murata was interested in vitamin C and, in particular, the impact that it could make on viruses.  In 1975 Murata summarized much of his early work in a paper written for the Intersectional Congress of the International Association of Microbiological Societies titled, “Virucidal Activity of Vitamin C: Vitamin C for Prevention and Treatment of Viral Diseases.” In it, he outlined a series of clinical trials that he had conducted with Morishige, which focused on the impact of vitamin C on viruses using phages for model systems and their host bacteria. A year later, in 1976, Murata went to the United States to study vitamin C and the immune system at the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine.

Murata and Pauling in Pauling's office, 1976.

A parallel track of research conducted by Murata and Morishige in the 1970s focused on the impact of vitamin C on hepatitis.  The duo authored an important paper titled “Vitamin C for Prophylaxis of Viral Hepatitis B in Transfused Patients,” (J. Int. Acad. Prev. Med. 1978;5(1):54–58) in which they discussed their hepatitis work.  In it, Murata and Morishige reported on a series of tests in which patients who had received blood transfusions were also given specific dosages of vitamin C.  From there, observations were made with respect to hepatitis contraction among the transfusion patients.

The researchers found that, between 1967 and 1976, no hepatitis B cases were recorded for those who received large doses of vitamin C following a blood transfusion. The paper concluded that vitamin C, in large amounts, has a “significant prophylactic effect against post-transfusion hepatitis, especially type B.”  Prior to its publication, Pauling annotated and edited Murata and Morishige’s text, adding his suggestions for how the manuscript could be improved.

In 1976, the year of his residency at the Pauling Institute, Murata also published observations made by Morishige on the effect of increased doses of ascorbic acid with respect to various viral and bacterial diseases. In their study, the duo found that ascorbic acid showed a therapeutic effect on infectious hepatitis, measles, mumps, viral orchitis, viral pneumonia and certain types of meningitis.

Murata continued this line of research through the 1980s, continually seeking out new ways to test the effects of vitamin C on human health. Like Pauling and Morishige, Murata was also highly interested in vitamin C and its possible therapeutic use with cancer. Several papers arose from this program of work, including one titled “Prolongation of Survival Times of Terminal Cancer Patients by Administration of Large Doses of Ascorbate,” (Int. J. Vitam. Nutr. Res. Suppl. 1982;23:103-113) and another listing viruses reported to be inactivated by vitamin C. Together, Pauling and Murata also served as chairmen and panel members for at least one workshop on vitamin C, immunology and cancer.

Akira Murata, Ava Helen Pauling and Linus Pauling. In Japan, 1980.

By the late 1980s, Akira Murata had contributed upwards of twenty-five publications on vitamin C and its effects upon various diseases, and Pauling continued to visit him and keep in contact. Murata typically hosted at least a portion of Pauling’s many visits to Japan, often acting in the duel capacity of scientific colleague and friend. Murata also translated a few of Pauling’s books into Japanese. Among these was Vitamin C, the Common Cold, and the Flu, the preface of which contains Pauling’s note of thanks to Murata and the observation that “it is important that everyone know about the great value that vitamin C has in improving health and in protecting against disease.” Murata also translated Pauling’s best-seller, How to Live Longer and Feel Better.

As with a few other contacts in Japan – especially Morishige – Pauling remained in close correspondence with Murata over the duration of their acquaintance, frequently discussing papers on vitamin C and exchanging ideas on new studies. The two remained friends and collaborators throughout the last two decades of Pauling’s life, both benefiting greatly from their cross-cultural exchange.

Fukumi Morishige

Linus Pauling and Fukumi Morishige, 1986.

Dr. Fukumi Morishige, a chief surgeon of the Fukuoka Torikai Hospital for over thirty years, introduced himself to Linus Pauling via letter in 1975.  In this initial outreach, the Japanese physician informed Pauling of his own research on vitamin C, asking to meet with him when Pauling visited Japan later that year. Pauling did indeed meet with him and, at Morishige’s request, delivered a lecture on the value of vitamin C in health and disease. Thus began a friendship and continuing correspondence that would last for the remainder of Pauling’s life.

Fukumi Morishige was born in Fukuoka, Japan in 1925. He attended Kurume University where, in 1961, he received his medical degree. Within six years of completing his studies, he became the chief surgeon of the Fukuoka Torikai Hospital. It was after he visited Tottori Sakyu Hospital and witnessed the inspiring work being accomplished by the resident surgeons there that he really began to take into consideration the importance of vitamin C.  He later recalled

I knew that giving vitamin C to patients helps them to heal quicker for some reasons but I didn’t know why. I decided to do more research on how vitamin C impacts human bodies and made up my mind to explore vitamin C’s effect and stay in this field.

So began his research studies on vitamin C, work that, at the time, focused specifically on the prevention of serum hepatitis in patients receiving blood transfusions.

Over time, Morishige’s interests moved in the direction of Pauling’s focus on cancer. Through the nearly twenty years of their correspondence, Morishige frequently would relay information about new ideas on cancer research, and Pauling would unfailingly reply with enthusiasm and encouragement, often voicing his desire to bring Morishige to the U. S. to discuss his progress.

Spurred by Pauling’s encouragement, Morishige conducted several experiments involving vitamin C and other therapies for cancer.  In 1983 Morishige, Pauling and three additional Japanese scientists published a paper in the journal Cancer Research titled, “Enhancement of Antitumor Activity of Ascorbate against Ehrlich Ascites Tumor Cells by the Copper: Glycylglycylhistidine Complex.” In this publication, the group communicated their work, which sought to increase the antitumor activity of ascorbate by use of an “innocuous form of cupric ion complexed with glycylglycylhistidine.” While it did not significantly “oxidize ascorbate,” the researchers found that the compound “killed Ehrlich ascites tumor cells” in high concentrations of ascorbate. They further reported that glycylglycylhistidine “prolonged the life span of mice inoculated with Ehrlich tumor cells.”

In 1986 Morishige was introduced to a cancer patient who seemed to be controlling her disease by drinking reishi tea. Excited by this, Morishige launched his own program of research on reishi mushrooms. Through his findings he came to believe that reishi mushrooms acted as both a cancer preventative and a tumor suppressant. He then began to combine the reishi treatments with vitamin C and found that the vitamin C strengthened the effectiveness of the reishi. Though Dr. Morishige used and tested this method successfully on several cancer patients, it is still looked upon as an alternative healing remedy rather than a medically accredited technique.

Artist's rendering of the Tachiarai Hospital. The back of this print is annotated by Pauling, "Dr. F. Morishige's hospital. We participated in dedicating it." Note Morshige's identification of his home to the right of the hospital.

Indeed, for both Pauling and Morishige, their work with vitamin C was commonly rejected by the medical community, yet they both doggedly continued to research the topic, determined to show the world what they believe to be the great benefits of ascorbic acid in medicine.

Over the course of their struggles and interactions, Morishige remained extremely grateful for Pauling’s support and continually expressed his gratitude to Pauling for the interest and advice that he imparted. Among the resources held in the Pauling Papers is a Japanese newspaper series in which Morishige discusses, in length, his relationship with Pauling and their continuing academic exchange on vitamin C. The newspaper series runs to twelve installments in total, all written in Japanese.  Our hope is to someday have this resource translated, so that we might gain further insight into this remarkable collaboration.

Later Japan

Linus Pauling with President Matsuda at Tokai University, 1975.

Sixteen years passed between Linus Pauling’s participation in the 1959 Hiroshima Conference and his next visit to Japan in Fall 1975.  And while the 1975 trip largely dealt with his findings and research on Vitamin C – a common theme for many of his travels to East Asia and elsewhere – some of his time was devoted to peace-related talks and activities.

Notably, Pauling attended a symposium of the Keidanren Kaikan Memorial Lecture in Tokyo, and a symposium of the Memorial Lecture at Hiroshima-Ishikaikan in Hiroshima. He also attended the Albert Schweitzer Fellowship of Japan and presented a paper titled “Reverence for Life and the Way to World Peace” in Tokyo.  His short “peace tour” likewise included his making a guest appearance on a talk show with Dr. Soichi Iijima, and following that up with a lecture, delivered at a high school in Hiroshima, titled “The Development of Science and the Future of Mankind.”

Then the vitamin C tour began. In the preface to the Japanese translation of his book Vitamin C, the Common Cold, and the Flu, Pauling described the budding of his interest in vitamin C. In it, he describes the familiar story of his initial intrigue in learning of the effectiveness of large doses of vitamins in controlling schizophrenia. Not long after,  a biochemist, Irwin Stone, wrote to Pauling of his own findings on vitamin C, health and disease, which further spurred Pauling’s own interest and compelled him to begin his own program of research.

As time passed and Pauling’s advocacy grew, he increasingly sought to spread this growing body of work around the world, including his stops in Japan. In 1975 Pauling went to Fukuoka with Dr. Fukumi Morishige (who would become a close colleague) to meet with fellow vitamin C researchers and discuss new ideas and experiments. While in Saga he likewise gave lectures on vitamin C to researchers and students at Tokai University. In October, near the end of his trip, he visited with a series of dignitaries including Kenzaburo Gushima, the President of Nagasaki University, and Yoshitake Morotani, the Mayor of Nagasaki. In these meetings Pauling exchanged thoughts on a number of ideas, including peace, but was also keen to discuss his favorite nutritional topic, vitamin C.

Five years later, Pauling and his wife made another trip to Japan in March and April of 1980. By this point, Pauling wanted very much to convince others that vitamin C lay at the heart of treating many ailments, and his activities during the 1980 trip are indicative of the fervor with which he pursued this goal.

Pauling began the trip by giving a talk to the general public on the health benefits of ascorbic acid. He then attended the general meeting of the Society of Japan Agricultural Chemistry at Fukuoka University, the topic of which was vitamin C and cancer. At the conclusion of this meeting he was made an honorary member of the Society. Next, at Kyoto University, he gave a lecture titled “What Can We Expect for Chemistry in the Next 100 Years?” after which he attended another symposium on vitamin C and participated in a vitamin C committee meeting at Cakushi Kaikan.  Prior to returning home, Pauling gave another lecture, “Prevention from Disease -Vitamin C, the Common Cold and Cancer,” and also found a spare moment to write a letter to the editor of Time about Vitamin C and cancer that clarified his thoughts on the vitamin’s relationship to cancer therapy.

Ava Helen Pauling and Dr. Yashie Souma, 1980.

In 1981 Pauling traveled to Japan on two short, separate occasions. The first visit was for the International Conference on Human Nutrition. During the second he appeared on Japanese television discussing orthomolecular medicine with Drs. Kitahara and Morishige.   A few days later he gave a lecture on the same topic to the Japanese Pharmacist Association.

Upon his return home, Pauling maintained a regular correspondence with Dr. Morishige about Morishige’s vitamin C research. He specifically wanted to know if Morishige had tested it on patients suffering from gastrointestinal cancer, noting his very personal reasons for doing so: this was the type of cancer from which Ava Helen was, at the time, suffering. Morishige wrote back to Pauling in September giving him a treatment plan that he thought might aid in slowing down the disease. Pauling attempted to act on this recommendation, but a variety of barriers arose to its implementation.  Less than three months later, she passed away.

Morishige's prescription.

---

In the years following, Pauling visited Japan three more times. Most of these trips, at least in part, involved his continuing efforts to secure financial support for the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine. In concert with his travels in 1981, Pauling wrote to the industrialist Ryoichi Sasakawa, asking his permission to establish a Ryoichi Sasakawa Research Professorship in Cancer Research. Pauling also requested that Sasakawa to endow the position, knowing of his support for cancer research in general and of Pauling’s efforts to explore Vitamin C in particular. Though Sasakawa did not fulfill this specific request, he did eventually gift many other large sums to the Institute for research and study.

A 1984 trip concentrated almost completely on vitamin C. Shortly before flying across the Pacific, Pauling wrote a chapter for the book Medical Science and the Advancement of Health titled “Problems Introducing a New Field of Medicine: Orthomolecular Medicine.” Completing this chapter clarified his thoughts and led directly to a talk, “Molecular Disease and Orthomolecular Medicine,” delivered upon his arrival to Tokyo. Assisting him in this talk were other doctors pursuing and interested in this same field. The rest of this trip was devoted to visiting various institutes and industrial sites including the National Institute of Genetics and the Aliment Industry Co. in Mishima, as well as a vitamin factory in Hakone.

Pauling’s final two visits to Japan both took place in 1986. The first trip was for an exposition on vitamin C and health, followed by a series of interviews and seminars where he discussed cancer therapy and research results with Japanese medical journalists.

Pauling delivering the Opening Address at the Tokyo Health Fair, April 1986.

Pauling returned to his activist roots for his final visit, which was devoted primarily to peace. He visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, the Memorial Monument for Hiroshima City of Peace, and participated in a public screening of the documentary “Hiroshima – A Document of Atomic Bombing.” He spoke with survivors of the 1945 nuclear attack and visited the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Hospital.

The Peace Summit in Hiroshima was also a part of this trip. Titled “In Quest for International Peace,” the gathering was partly devoted to discussions of the role of science in working for peace. The last of many speeches that Linus Pauling delivered in his nine trips to Japan took place in Hiroshima and was titled, “We Have Already Taken a Great Step Toward the Goal of World Peace.”  At this point Pauling had come full circle in Japan, a country that he greatly admired.

The Paulings and Japan: Roots of a Fruitful Relationship

Dining in Japan, 1955.

“As a scientist I am interested in Japan and primarily in the universities…[I am] greatly impressed by the natural and cultural richness of the country… [where] scientific work is of the highest quality…Science of the modern world has been accelerated here by the atom-bomb and radiation…Because of this, hopefully steps will be made towards the goal of permanent world peace.”

-Linus Pauling, 1955

Japan was a favored spot for research, vacation, and lecture for Linus Pauling and his wife, Ava Helen. Generally speaking, the Japanese held the couple in high esteem, a major factor in Pauling having maintained close contacts with many of the country’s leading scientists.

The public’s adoration also resulted in the extension of numerous invitations to Pauling to deliver lectures and attend conferences. He was invited to visit on multiple occasions by a wide variety of Japanese societies and committees, and followed through a documented nine times. Each of the trips, spanning some thirty-one years, involved at least one of three agenda items: vitamin C, chemistry research, or the struggle for world peace and nuclear disarmament.  Today’s post focuses on the Paulings travel to Japan in the 1950s.  Future posts will detail later trips as well as certain Japanese individuals who became important to Pauling and his work.

Pauling manuscript on Japanese scientists and science, March 10, 1955.

The first proposed trip to East Asia was scheduled for 1953. Linus Pauling was supposed to travel to Tokyo from February to March of that year, but it was cancelled due to his chronic passport difficulties. Instead, 1955 marked the first of many ventures to Japan. While there from February to March, Linus and Ava Helen visited Tokyo, Kyoto, and Osaka.

The 1955 trip in particular was dedicated to delivering lectures on the chemical bond, hemoglobin and proteins. The first lectures that Pauling gave took place at Tokyo University. There, he spoke on structural chemistry as well as the hemoglobin molecule and its correlation to health and disease. These lectures were also repeated to the general public of nation’s capital, as well as at Osaka University. In between lectures Pauling also attended seminars on proteins.

This was the only of Pauling’s Japanese trips that was solely associated with topics in chemistry. In his future visits, chemistry was typically brought up in some form, but time was more frequently occupied with topics of the atomic age, the peace movement and, in later years, vitamin C.

Linus Pauling lecturing on hemoglobin. Tokyo, Japan. February 26, 1955.

The main purpose for visiting Japan in August 1959 was to attend the Hiroshima 5th World Conference against Atom and Hydrogen Bombs. Pauling began his trip by participating in a march at the Hiroshima Peace Park, followed by a brief lecture titled “Physical and Biological Aspects of Radon” at Hiroshima University.

For the 5th World Conference, Pauling also edited and approved “The Hiroshima Appeal” which demanded that all nations cease the testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. A note attached to the Appeal indicates that Pauling found the document to be just and did not understand how individuals might not support it. He then, on August 7, 1959, wrote his own manifesto titled “The Scientist’s Appeal,” which also asked that nuclear tests be stopped and that science not be “used in any ways incompatible with the principles of humanity.”

Pauling’s stance and his participation in the Hiroshima conference sparked conversation back in the United States. In the Chicago Daily News for instance, journalist Keyes Beech wrote an article titled “Pauling Denies ‘Left’ Role at Hiroshima,” in which the scientist discussed his comments and thoughts on disarmament, while denying claims that he was being used as a tool of political propaganda by communist hardliners allegedly present at the Hiroshima Conference.

In a letter that he later wrote to his friend, Dr. Gunther Anders of Austria, he further discussed the conference. In particular, he stated that he felt strongly about continuing to work with the Japan Council and its head, Dr. Kaoru Yasui. Pauling also suggested that China be made a member of the United Nations so that provisions could be implemented to prevent China from developing its own cache of nuclear arms.

After the conference concluded, Pauling gave a talk in the Grand Lecture Hall of Politics and Economics Department of Hiroshima University titled, “Our Choice: Atomic Death or World Law.” In it he advocated for a world government (a “path of reason”) that would bring peace, and condemned the use of nuclear weapons and the dysfunction of “insensate militarism.” These ideals were extended in additional meetings with the Japanese Committee of the Pugwash Conference, and collections of other scientists and academics.

In these conversations Pauling reiterated his stance that it is the scientist’s duty to understand the physical reality of nuclear war and to relay its horrors to the world. To further his support of these convictions he held a meeting on peace in Tokyo, participated in the march at the Peace Park in Hiroshima, and gave a lecture titled “Physical Biological Aspects of Radiation” at Hiroshima University.

In Pauling’s view, understanding the consequences of nuclear detonations and radioactive fallout was crucial to furthering the general public’s realization of just how destructive atomic weapons are. He believed this to be a social responsibility of scientists, and in his last few days in Japan he met with colleagues in Hiroshima, Osaka, and Kyoto to stress the point.

Chris Hables Gray, Resident Scholar

Dr. Chris Hables Gray

Dr. Chris Hables Gray, professor at the Union Institute and University and lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, is the fourth individual this year to complete a term as Resident Scholar in the Special Collections & Archives Research Center.  Dr. Gray is a self-described “anarchist, feminist, post-modernist” who has written widely on a number of subjects, with a particular emphasis on cyborgs and evolution.

Gray visited Corvallis to examine the Paul Lawrence Farber Papers and the Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Papers, spurred by a keen interest in tracing the development of Pauling’s thinking on evolution.  His provocative Resident Scholar presentation, titled “Linus Pauling and the Temptation of Evolutionary Ethics,” generated a great deal of thoughtful discussion among those who gathered to hear him speak.

Gray’s thesis was that, in at least two instances, Linus Pauling gave in to what Paul Farber termed “the temptations of evolutionary ethics.”  Farber, a historian of science and emeritus chair of the OSU History Department, defined this temptation as the impulse to use science as a basis for a full system of normative ethics.  Gray is sympathetic to Farber’s warnings against this impulse as, in his view,

Culture is not different from nature.  Human culture is natural.  It is evolved, as much as the behavior of mockingbirds or ants.  All of life is evolved.  The natural/biological vs. cultural distinction is not only wrong, it is dangerous.  [On the same token], humans are not rational.

As an extension of this postulate, Gray offered this thought, which was fundamental to his presentation

I don’t think evolutionary science will ever provide a base for a system of ethics.  The ideas and actions behind the Holocaust are as natural as those behind the Civil Rights movement.  All that humans do is natural….Farber is right that evolutionary science cannot give us a normative ethics, a complete system of ethics.  It cannot show what should be ethical, but it can show what is possible and what is impossible.  It can help us in our ethical reasoning.

During his stay in Corvallis, Gray traced Pauling’s thinking on evolution from his earliest documented years, noting a particularly optimistic Junior Class Oration in which the future scientific great “makes of evolution a religion.”  As time moved on, Pauling’s thoughts on the topic changed somewhat, his optimism tempered by the realities of the atomic age.  Instead of a religion, evolution became a morality.  Likewise, man was no longer destined to evolve into a superman, but rather was part of a superorganism, “humankind,” whose greatest attributes – as Pauling noted in 1959 – were “sanity (reason), and morality (ethical principles.)”

For Pauling the concept of morality was firmly rooted in Albert Schweitzer’s principle of “minimization of suffering,” and it is here that he began to fall prey to the temptations of evolutionary ethics. Most glaring was Pauling’s advocacy of negative eugenics in the mid- to late-1960s.  As Gray noted

Pauling saw reality as based on molecules, and so diseases were molecular….His work on sickle-cell anemia was framed in this way. Once he realized that it was a genetic disease he put forward some startling solutions… [including the tattooing of phenotype information on people's foreheads] enforced genetic testing and abortions…even though dietary and other treatments for sickle cell anemia were known and effective. Eventually he stopped raising this issue. We don’t know why for sure, but we can assume he realized it was not a popular approach to the problem of genetic disease.

Gray also submitted Pauling’s interest in vitamin C, especially as a possible treatment for cancer, as another example in which his evolutionary thinking went astray.

The reasoning behind Pauling’s belief that humans did not consume enough Vitamin C was based on evolutionary science. Roughly half the primates, including humans and our closest cousins, cannot synthesize vitamin C, an ability that all plants and almost all animals have. His theory was that the ancestral primate lost the ability to synthesize C when in an environment with plentiful dietary C. Then, as humans moved into other environments with less dietary C, deficiency diseases and conditions, such as a degraded immune system…resulted – and not just scurvy, but long term conditions and even cancer.

While Gray conceded that there is some validity to this argument, he found Pauling’s larger thesis to be “less than convincing.”

…numerous studies have failed to show that all, or even most, humans have a massive Vitamin C deficit. It is true that C can help limit the severity of colds, that it helps in some healing, and has other benefits. But the massive positive effects of massive doses of C have not proven to be as helpful as Pauling claimed.

Gray concluded that

we have to be more careful that Pauling in applying evolutionary thinking to ethics….if we take evolution seriously we have to let go of totalizing schemes for perfecting humanity, as much as the dream of perfection appeals to young chemistry students and profoundly moral famous scientists alike. But evolutionary science can be useful in our quest for a better, more moral, world.

Because of the great diversity of humans…especially as evolved culture allows for such a wide range of variation, and “conscious” evolution, no totalistic ethical system based on human altruism or any other quality is viable. Altruism has certainly evolved in humans, as has selfishness, cruelty, and social pathology. Inherited traits are often not universal, which makes sense in that variation is the key to evolution’s power. But this also means that any ethical system will have to be imposed on some people, even if it is a “biological” fit for the majority. And since all of us have many layers of moral reasoning and ethical impulses, often contradictory, and that humans continue to evolve and a very fast rate thanks to the Lamarkian power of culture, we will never have a perfect ethics.

For more on the Resident Scholar Program, please visit this page, which, among other details, includes links to the profiles that we have written of all past scholarship recipients.