Analyzing Precipitation Reactions Between Simple Substances

1942i.2

Linus Pauling, 1942

[Part 2 of 6 in a series investigating Pauling’s work on the serological properties of simple substances.]

The first four papers published by Linus Pauling and his Caltech colleagues on the serological properties of simple substances described general aspects of the precipitation reactions that occur between antibodies and antigens. This work was spurred by a fundamental conundrum: Pauling and many others knew that antibodies and antigens would react to form solid precipitates. However, because the chemical structures of these precipitates were, at the time, so difficult to determine, scientists had been unable to decipher crucial details about the antibodies and the antigens that combined to form them.

Pauling’s solution to this problem was to investigate the products of a reaction that utilized, in part, a chemical compound whose structure he already knew. The constituents of these products were a simple organic compound consisting of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, combined with one or more haptenic groups – small molecules that spur the formation of antibodies when coupled with a larger molecule. Employing this methodology would, Pauling felt, allow him to better approximate the make-up of the antibody, because the experiment now involved only one unknown structure.


In order to run the experiments, Pauling set up a standard protocol for preparing the compounds that he needed. Each experiment required three types of compounds: simple antigens used in the precipitation reactions; immunizing antigens used to create antibodies; and antisera, which are liquids containing antibodies formed through the coagulation of blood. Pauling used this method for all of his serological reaction experiments.

Pauling and his collaborators obtained the antisera by injecting rabbits (some of them housed in Pauling’s yard and cared for by his children) with immunizing antigens. The rabbits then produced antibodies to combine with and neutralize the immunizing antigens. Once the last injection was carried out, the scientists drew blood from the rabbits, allowed it to clot, and collected the antiserum.

The reactants for Pauling’s experiments – immunizing antigens and simple antigens – were either purchased or prepared by Pauling and his collaborators, typically the graduate students.

For each precipitation test, equal portions of antiserum and a saline solution containing a simple antigen were mixed together. Typically, four to six different concentrations of antigen were used. The mixtures stood at room temperature for one hour, then were refrigerated overnight. The next day, a centrifuge was used to separate out the precipitates, which were then washed with saline solution and analyzed. Pauling’s method of analysis involved measurements of nitrogen, arsenic, carbon, and hydrogen. From there, the amount of a given antibody in the precipitate was determined using the nitrogen measurements.

The initial set of experiments used twenty-seven different compounds as the antigen, each containing between one and four haptenic groups. All of the polyhaptenic substances – those that had more than one haptenic group per molecule – formed precipitates, but none of the monohaptenic substances did. This finding supported the framework theory, devised by the British chemist John Marrack in 1934, that postulated that multivalent antibody molecules could combine with polyhaptenic molecules to form large aggregates, which would become precipitates. On the other hand, Marrack suggested, if multivalent antibody molecules combined with monohaptenic molecules, only small complexes would form and these would not precipitate.

Pauling summarized this work in a set of four papers that were published in the December 1942 issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.


marrack

John Richardson Marrack

Pauling’s first article, “Precipitation Reactions between Antibodies and Substances Containing Two or More Haptenic Groups,” served primarily to provide support for Marrack’s framework theory. Eight years before, Marrack had stated that antibodies were multivalent; in other words, they can bond to more than one antigen molecule. In order for them to bind in this way, the molecules must be properly oriented such that the binding sites fit together. This causes the formation of a lattice-like structure which grows until it is too large to stay in solution and precipitates out.

As noted above, Pauling’s experiments found that “simple antigens containing two or more haptenic groups per molecule were found to give precipitates with the antisera, whereas the seven monohaptenic substances failed to precipitate,” a discovery that confirmed the validity of the Marrack-Heidelberger framework, or lattice theory.

The second paper in this installment was titled “The effects of changed conditions and of added haptens on precipitation reactions of polyhaptenic simple substances.” The alterations to conditions that were tested by Pauling included allowing the mixture to rest longer, changing its temperature, and altering its pH. Having confirmed his own belief, in Paper I, that antibodies are multivalent, Pauling used Paper II to first note his assumption – and provide evidence for – bivalence.

In addition, Pauling used this paper to publish an equation that could be employed to find the amount of a precipitated compound in a given solution based on solubility, equilibrium constant, and total amount of hapten. Notably, the equation led Pauling to deduce “that in each case the maximum amount of precipitate is produced by an amount of antigen approximately equal to the amount of antibody,” an idea that unfolded more fully in the following paper.

1942-equation

The equation published by Pauling in Paper II.

Paper III, “The composition of precipitates of antibodies and polyhaptenic simple substances; the valence of antibodies,” further explores the supposition of bivalence through an examination of the ratio of antibody to antigen in precipitates.

While the bulk of Pauling’s experiments focused on dihaptenic antigens, some used trihaptenic antigens, and others used tetrahaptenic antigens. Through careful analyses of the different precipitates that resulted, Pauling was able to determine that the ratio of antibody to antigen in any given precipitate was approximately 1:1.

This finding suggested that most antigens could have only two antibody molecules attach to them, even if they possessed more than two haptenic groups, since the antibody molecules were relatively large and interfered with one another’s attachment. Pauling also used the one-to-one ratio to conclude that most antibody molecules possess two binding sites. The major development of this paper – the near one-to-one ratio – was “taken to indicate bivalence of most of the antibody molecules.”

The last paper of the first installment, Paper IV, reported the results of initial experiments on the inhibition of precipitation in the presence of hapten. Pauling and his colleagues had tested precipitate inhibition in three basic ways: by altering temperature, by augmenting the amounts of hapten present in their mixtures, and by isolating the effects of twenty-four specific haptens. These experiments found that adding haptens to a mixture of antibodies and antigens inhibited the precipitation of the antibody-antigen complex.

Furthermore, Pauling concluded that the structure of the haptens correlated with their inhibition power and detailed the relative values of each hapten’s bond strength. He then used the hapten inhibition data from these experiments to update his earlier equation for finding the amount of antibody precipitated.

Next week, we’ll examine eight more papers that Pauling published on the topic over the next three years and explore the ways in which this body of research evolved and expanded during that time.

The Serological Properties of Simple Substances

1935i.1

Linus Pauling, 1935

[Part 1 of 6]

Today, Linus Pauling is most commonly known for unraveling the chemical bond, working for peace, and promoting vitamin C. However, this short list barely scratches the surface of Pauling’s work in any number of fields. Beginning today, we will explore a lengthy program of research that Pauling oversaw on the serological properties of simple substances, a title that he appended to fifteen publications authored from 1942 to 1949. Post one in this series will focus primarily on Pauling’s background in biology and the work that led up to his first set of serological publications.

One of Pauling’s first major forays into the world of biology came about through his study of hemoglobin, the molecule responsible for transporting oxygen in the blood. Specifically, in 1934, he launched a study hemoglobin partly as a means to begin a larger inquiry into the structure of proteins.

An investigation of hemoglobin, Pauling quickly decided, would require more than one year to obtain results. Consequently, in November 1934, he applied for a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to “support researches on the structure of Haemoglobin and other substances of biological importance.”

At the time, the Rockefeller Foundation was keenly interested in funding studies of “the science of life,” and Pauling’s grant request was promptly approved, with the first injection of funds received in July 1935. Although Pauling had originally intended for the grant money to go specifically toward his work on hemoglobin, as he corresponded with his funders he expressed an openness to studying other “interesting biochemical problems,” and indeed this quickly became the case.


A few months later, in 1936, Pauling met Karl Landsteiner, whose ideas would help to shape the course of Pauling’s research for the next several years. Landsteiner was an Austrian biologist and physician best known for discovering the human blood groups. By the time that he met Pauling, he was also actively engaged with topics in immunology.

Over the course of their conversations, Landsteiner passed this interest on to Pauling, who became fascinated by the specificity of antigens (foreign substances that enter into the body) and antibodies (proteins that neutralize antigens and prevent them from causing harm). The human immune system is capable of building thousands of antibodies, each of which reacts with a specific antigen. This specificity is seen in few other physical or chemical phenomena. However, one area in which it is found is crystallization, an area of chemistry with which Pauling was very familiar. This body of knowledge set Pauling down a path to making important contributions to the study of antigen-antibody behavior.

As he sought to learn more, Pauling read Landsteiner’s recently published book, The Specificity of Serological Reactions, finishing it shortly after their initial meeting. The following year, 1937, Pauling and Landsteiner met again and spent several days discussing the most current ideas in immunology. For Pauling, immunology presented two particularly compelling questions: First, what were the forces that enabled the combination of an antibody and its homologous antigen, but no other molecule? Second, how were antibodies produced and how did this means of production allow antibodies and antigens to combine so specifically?


1943i11-600w

Dan Campbell and Linus Pauling in a Caltech laboratory, 1943.

In 1939, Pauling decided to shift the bulk of his research focus to the interaction dynamics of antigens and antibodies. As his work moved forward, Pauling came to theorize that the specificity shown by antibodies when combining with antigens depended on how well-matched the shapes of the two molecules were, a theory called molecular complementarity. In other words, antibodies and antigens were able to come together because their shapes complemented one another, like a hand in a glove.

From there, Pauling developed a plan to perform a broad range of experiments that would, he hoped, strengthen this theory and prompt it forward as the accepted explanation for the specificity of serological reactions. To assist in this promising line of inquiry, Pauling hired Dan Campbell, at the time a research fellow at the University of Chicago, to come to Caltech and serve as the Institute’s first faculty member in Immunochemistry. Campbell arrived in January 1940 and remained at Caltech until his death in 1974.

Once relocated to Pasadena, Campbell starting out by working on structural studies of hemoglobin – Pauling’s old research project dating back to 1934. A few months later however, a key shipment of serum antigens arrived from Karl Landsteiner’s laboratory, and both Campbell and Pauling began experimenting on the issue of the day. Initially, the duo encountered only disappointment as they uncovered no results of interest. However, the early setbacks did not stop Pauling. He persevered and, in October, published a landmark article, “A Theory of the Structure and Process of Formation of Antibodies,” which detailed his ideas on molecular complementarity.


In 1941, Pauling began an experimental program on serological reactions focusing on simpler organic compounds whose structure he already knew. In so doing, he also began to add more collaborators. Besides Campbell, the first of these was David Pressman, who earned his doctorate under Pauling and then stayed on at Caltech to support the nascent immunology program until finally leaving in 1947.

In addition to the simple substances work, this trio of researchers also continued other lines of study pertaining to Pauling’s antibodies projects. In early 1942, one of these produced what seemed to be an incredible result: that March, through a press release rather than a conventional journal article, Pauling, Campbell and Pressman announced that they had created artificial antibodies. A wide array of newspapers and magazines picked up the story and interest rapidly grew. However, other scientists could not replicate the trio’s results and skepticism of the group’s claim began to mount. Pauling, however, continued to believe that his team had truly created artificial antibodies, though subsequent efforts found only dead ends.

Undaunted, Pauling continued his experiments on serological reactions in simple substances and, in December 1942, published the first four papers of what would ultimately become a fifteen-paper series. This body of scholarship was the culmination of several years of work conducted by many people including Pauling, his two main collaborators, David Pressman and Dan Campbell, as well as one other non-student colleague. Several graduate students also supported the effort by helping to prepare the necessary compounds and running the experiments; as the publication series ran its course, eight were eventually listed as co-authors. Three graduate students, Carol Ikeda, Miyoshi Ikawa, and David H. Brown, were involved in the first four papers. Beginning next week, we will take a closer look at the details of what this group published.

Pauling’s Final Libel Suits

york-cartoon

Editorial cartoon published by the Anti-Communist League of York County.

Linus Pauling’s tendency toward litigation during the 1960s has been well-documented on our blog. As a central figure in the debate over nuclear weapons testing, Pauling was considered by many to be an important advocate for world peace, while many others called him out as a subversive communist. Pauling’s reputation clearly suffered due to the negative press he received, and over the first half of the decade, he decided to combat these attacks through libel suits against conservative presses and other groups that had published defamatory articles against him.

The last three of these cases were filed against the Anti-Communist League of York County, Nevadans On Guard, and the Australian Consolidated Press. These cases all ended poorly for Pauling, a trend that defined much of his litigation. Indeed, out of eight cases that Pauling mounted, he only won two, and they were the two earliest cases.


york-pamphlet

Excerpt from the Anti-Communist League of York County pamphlet that prompted legal action by Linus Pauling.

In May 1962, Charles M. Gitt, the president of the Gazette and Daily, two local York County, Pennsylvania newspapers, notified Pauling about a pamphlet that had been distributed by the Anti-Communist League of York County. The pamphlet consisted of an article titled “Brainwashed at Home by the Gazette and Daily” that theorized

To carry out this brainwashing job, the Gazette and Daily makes use of the following top Communists and sympathizers: Linus C. Pauling, an identified Communist, frequently is quoted on the front page of the Gazette, concerning his distorted views of the effects of nuclear fallout. According to H.C.U.A., he has a history of cooperation with Communist causes. To trust Pauling’s predictions on fallout is to trust the goat in the cabbage patch….The above radicals have much longer pro-Communist and outright subversive histories, but space will not permit a full account.

Pauling quickly responded to Gitt, writing “My attorney tells me that the phrase ‘an identified Communist,’ and the reference to ‘outright subversive histories’ are libelous.” Gitt agreed and encouraged Pauling to sue.

In June 1962, Pauling wrote to an area lawyer, Henry Sawyer of Philadelphia, inquiring into his willingness to serve as his counsel. In this initial letter, he put forth the gist of his complaint against the Anti-Communist League of York County.

The description of me is, in my opinion, defamatory, libelous, and grossly damaging to me. My textbooks of chemistry are used in the State of Pennsylvania and in adjacent states, and the dissemination of defamatory material of this sort may well cause me financial loss….You can understand why I feel that it is necessary for me to protect my reputation in the Philadelphia area, against an attack of this sort….I must tell you that at the present time I am involved in three libel suits, and have just brought a fourth to its termination. The one that was settled was against the Bellingham Publishing Company, Bellingham, Washington. It was settled by payment of the sum of $16,000 to my wife and me.

Pauling and Sawyer were aware that Pauling had only about a 50-50 chance of winning and, were he to win, it was likely that the damages received would be modest as the York County group was quite small and lacked significant funding. But at the time, Pauling was more interested in proving his point and casting a warning to others who might entertain the idea of publishing similarly defamatory articles. In the end, Pauling decided to sue the Anti-Communist League and its backers for $100,000, knowing that a payday of this magnitude was very unlikely to come to pass.

Once notified of Pauling’s suit, the Anti-Communist League did everything in its power to delay court proceedings as long as possible. This tactic paid off when, in 1964, a landmark Supreme Court Case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, was decided. The verdict handed down by the high court in this case set a stiff standard for proving libel against public figures and rendered Pauling’s case virtually unwinnable.

Though their hopes of victory were greatly reduced, Pauling and his team moved forward with the York litigation and finally received a pre-trial conference in the summer of 1965. The judge at the conference stated that the case clearly fell within the purview of the New York Times ruling, just like nearly all Pauling’s libel suits. Furthermore, none of the defendants really had any money. Ultimately, a lone defendant offered to settle for $2,000 and Pauling decided to accept the offer. Nonetheless, the damages received represented a clear loss for Pauling, as his legal fees had far exceeded $2,000 by this time. In May 1966, the case was finally dismissed in entirety.


detar

Comments by Dr. Detar, a potential defendant in the Nevadans on Guard suit.

On October 26, 1963, a small newspaper, Nevadans On Guard, published an article about Pauling bearing the headline “American Communist Given Nobel Prize.” Upon learning of this, Pauling decided to sue Nevadans On Guard, as well as the DeTar family, the Schaefer family, and possibly others responsible for defaming Pauling in the area.

In January 1964, Nevada attorney Charles Springer agreed to take on the case. The following March, Pauling lost his case against the St. Louis Globe Democrat at the same time that many of his other legal proceedings were not going as well as expected.

Charles Springer was also the State Chairman of the Democratic party in Nevada, so he was quite busy. This need to juggle obligations delayed the filing of Pauling’s suit until 1965. After that point, no additional records about the Nevadans On Guard case remain extant in Pauling’s records. One might reasonably speculate that Pauling decided against going forward with the case since he was already embroiled in so many other losing battles.


bulletin

The Bulletin publication that prompted legal action in Australia.

In the Fall of 1964, the Paulings visited Australia to participate in the Australian Conference for International Cooperation and Disarmament. While in Sydney, Ava Helen Pauling was handled a leaflet excerpted from an Australian magazine, The Bulletin, that had been published on October 24, 1964. The leaflet consisted an article titled “But Not Dr. Pauling” that implied that Pauling was a liar and a communist sympathizer. After a bit of investigating, Pauling learned that The Bulletin was owned by Australian Consolidated Press, Ltd., which stood by its article and expressed no fear at the prospect of legal action.

Regardless, Pauling’s lawyers thought he had a good chance of winning until June 1965 when, in a lengthy letter, his lawyers outlined an array of pitfalls, mostly having to do with public perception. Pauling’s primary lawyer in Australia, E. J. Kirby, began by stating of the leaflet’s author

One gets the impression of a writer who is not exact or careful, and who wished to make the most biting, extravagant attack, either because he felt you would not hit back, or because he wished deliberately to provoke you to it.

From there, Kirby outlined his view of what the jury’s reactions to the case might be, detail by detail. Specifically, he felt that the jury might be influenced by the defense to think that Pauling was indeed associated with communists, simply due to the large number of Pauling’s acquaintances that would be called into question. Even if Pauling’s counsel proved that each and every one was not a communist, “Unfair as you may think it, they may come to believe that where there is so much smoke there must be some fire.”

Furthermore, though Kirby thought it likely that the jury would understand that Pauling was himself not a communist and did love the US, “we think that the jury may well be convinced, finally, just as the Senate Committee [Senate Internal Security Subcommittee] was convinced, that you have allowed yourself to be used by Communists, and Communist-front organizations, that you have been drawn into their orbit, as it were, and have to some extent become influenced by their ways of thinking.”

Kirby then pointed out that Pauling had made the deliberate decision to be more critical of the US than of the Soviet Union because he believed that it was his duty as a citizen and that he wished to serve as a model of diplomacy among nations. Though Pauling had claimed on many occasions that he did not know anything about communism or communist fronts, few juries were likely to prove overly sympathetic, given Pauling’s long history as an activist.

In view of these headwinds, Kirby advised his client that success seemed unlikely.

On the whole, therefore, we have very reluctantly come to the conclusion that what the Senate had to say in its Report, and even what the “Bulletin” had to say in its article, could be regarded by a jury as being to an extent justified in the practical sense, by the facts. In so regarding the Senate Report and the “Bulletin” article a jury, you may say, would be acting in an unjustified fashion, yet this we think is what one must do in the ordinary affairs of life, and what we believe the jury may well do in your case, however much the Judge may direct them on these points of evidence to the contrary.

Indeed, the situation looked bleak. “We now have some reservations as to the defamatory matter itself,” Kirby wrote, “[and] we have formed the view that it could well be held to be justified in part.”

A with the York County case, the issue of money emerged as an additional complication. As Kirby explained “Our Supreme Court delivered itself of a judgement in what we call the Uren case, to the effect that a plaintiff is entitled only to compensatory damages, and not to punitive or exemplary damages.” Kirby estimated that a trial would take anywhere from six to eight weeks and that the total cost to Pauling, if he lost, would amount to £10,859.10. Likewise, the total cost if he won was estimated at £954.12. Either way, Pauling stood to lose monetarily with the possible outcome of a fantastic financial loss should the case not go his way.

After reading this letter, Pauling understandably decided not to continue with the Australia case and, by September 1966, it was formally concluded.

That same year, Pauling lost his appeal in the St. Louis Globe Democrat case. Pauling’s final libel suit, bitterly contested against the National Review, took two more years to conclude, and it too ended in defeat for Pauling. Hampered by a Supreme Court decision that came about in the midst of his most litigious period, Pauling’s legal war against the press cost him a great deal personally and monetarily, and won him little.

The Challenge of Scientific Discovery

1967i.2

Linus Pauling, 1967

Fifty years ago, Linus Pauling found himself in a typically busy mode of life. The year 1967 started in Honolulu, Hawaii, where the Paulings visited with their eldest son, Linus Jr. They then spent the next two months travelling through Singapore, India and Sri Lanka, during which Linus delivered a series of lectures, including the Azad Memorial Lecture in New Delhi.

Once the summer arrived, Pauling made use of a one-year leave of absence from the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in order to take a short-term position as a professor of chemistry at the University of California, San Diego. Later, in November, he traveled to New Orleans to accept the Roebling Medal from the American Mineralogical Society.

Pauling was pretty clearly a popular speaker at this point in time. In 1967 alone, he gave roughly thirty lectures that we know of, while also trying to maintain his program of scientific research. In today’s post, we’ll examine a talk that he gave exactly fifty years ago; one that was fairly emblematic of the public speaking that he was doing during this period.


snyder-program

Program for Pauling’s Snyder Lecture, May 17, 1967

Because he had so many lectures planned for 1967, by November of 1966 Pauling had decided that he would not entertain any more requests. However, after receiving a letter from Hope Powell, the Dean of Student Personnel at Los Angeles City College, in which she invited him to deliver the college’s prestigious William Henry Snyder Lecture, he opted to make an exception and accept the invitation.

This was not Pauling’s first contact with the college. A few years prior, the school had contacted Pauling to inquire into the possibility of his giving their commencement address. Prior commitments rendered him unable to do so, but he suggested that they send a later invitation for another speech.

Powell followed this advice in her 1966 letter, noting that the Snyder lecture was meant to “stimulate the thinking and expand the horizons of our students,” and conveying the eagerness that both the school’s students and faculty felt at the possibility that Pauling might make a visit. In terms of a topic, Powell suggested that Pauling share his views on “the challenges to education and society presented by scientific and technological advances.”


lp-snyder

Los Angeles Nite News, May 15, 1967

Los Angeles City College, originally known as Los Angeles Junior College, was founded in 1929 by William Henry Snyder; by 1966, it enrolled over 18,000 students. The Annual Snyder lecture was founded in 1935 to honor Snyder, a pioneer of the junior college system who made many noteworthy contributions to the field of education. Speakers previous to Pauling had included Robert Millikan, Thomas Mann, and Eleanor Roosevelt.

The Los Angeles City College Collegian was among the newspapers who previewed Pauling’s talk in the days leading up to the event. The Collegian‘s piece relied in particular on foreign languages professor Meyer Krakowski, who was serving as chair of the Lecture Committee, and who pointed out that Pauling – by then a controversial figure to many – was chosen because “his talk is educationally oriented and will appeal to the majority of students.” The article also quoted physicist Hans Bethe, who said of Pauling

Without his awakening of the public conscience on [nuclear testing] there would not have been any pressure on governments, and there would not have been any test ban.

On the morning of May 17th, Pauling arrived on campus for a press conference. An hour later, at 11:00AM, he gave the twenty-ninth annual Snyder Lecture, titled “The Challenge of Scientific Discovery.” Held outside on the school’s baseball field, the event began with the playing of the national anthem by the LACC Band, which was followed by remarks, introductions, and greetings from a series of dignitaries, including the college’s president and the president of the student body.

Meyer Krakowski then introduced Pauling, describing the day’s speaker in glowing terms:

[Pauling] finds no conflict between his position as a scientist and his position as a private citizen. Between his search for truth in science and his search for truth in society there is complete harmony. He firmly believes that science was made for man, and not man for science… Dr. Pauling has been inspired by the challenges of scientific discovery, and he gladly shares with others his enthusiasm and his inspiration.


“I want to talk to you about how science might contribute to your happiness,” Pauling began. In doing so, he described early scientific discoveries including pi, bacteria, and blood circulation that emerged from scientific inquiry spurred by simple curiosity about our world.

This sense of invigorating wonder permeated the whole of Pauling’s talk. At one point, when reflecting on Albert Einstein’s breakthroughs with relativity, Pauling commented that “he must have had a tremendous feeling of happiness when he first had his great idea.” Later, he described a fellow student who, upon learning about the discovery of electron spins, was “so excited he could hardly talk.” He likewise shared his own memories of an important moment in his unraveling the secrets of the chemical bond:

I worked at my desk nearly all that night, so full of excitement that I could hardly write. It is a wonderful feeling to understand something about the world that no one else has ever understood.

From there, Pauling emphasized the ever-evolving nature of science and the fact that new discoveries often overturn old ideas. In doing so, he hastened to point out that this evolution should not be seen as a source of discouragement for a researcher whose work might have been rendered moot. Instead, he urged the students to focus on the overarching quest for truth:

[W]e must try to understand these interesting aspects of the world. … The sources of happiness in this world are not so great that we can afford to neglect any of them, and satisfying one’s intellectual curiosity can be one of the great sources of happiness.

The end of Pauling’s speech was dedicated to a discussion of the intersection between science and morality, a topic to which he had devoted a great deal of thought. He told the students that in his world travels, he had not discerned any real difference in basic human nature, no matter where he was. As such, he declared that “we need to have a fundamental principle of morality that is independent of revelation, superstition, dogma, and creed.” He then added that “as a scientist, I have tried to work on this problem, to derive a basic ethical principle.” This core belief was that all people must work together to decrease the amount of human suffering in the world.

Pauling closed his lecture with a call to action:

I believe that the discoveries made by the scientists have brought the world together in a way that it never was before. The new means of communication and transportation have made the whole of humanity into one great organism. Our loyalty now should be to the whole of humanity. The time has come when we can make the world a great place for all human beings, everywhere, through the use of the resources of the world and the discoveries made by scientists for the benefit of humanity, and not for war, death, and destruction.

The response to Pauling’s talk was effusive in its praise. In a letter penned soon after the event, Dean Powell offered that

In an urban junior college such as ours where there are many disadvantaged students and students of every race, creed, and economic situation, it is particularly important to provide outstanding speakers such as you are, to provide them with mental stimulation and encouragement. Your visit here was thus doubly meaningful.

Meyer Krakowski added

We feel that the three thousand people who heard you…will long remember your enthusiastic discussion of the challenge of scientific discovery and the emphasis you placed on the scientists and society’s responsibility to all humanity.

Perhaps most notably however, LACC’s student government felt the evening to have been so important that they decided to allocate funds to publish a transcript made from a tape recording of the lecture. Pauling received fifty copies of the pamphlet that resulted, and many more were distributed on campus.

snyder-pamphlet

A Lifelong Quest for Peace

pauling-ikeda-1987

Pauling and Ikeda at Soka University in Los Angeles, 1987

[Part 2 of 2 in a series on Pauling’s interactions with Daisaku Ikeda.]

Linus Pauling’s 1987 meeting with Japanese peace activist Daisaku Ikeda, in which the two discussed their lives and philosophies in great detail, clearly made an impression on both men. Not long after, Ikeda’s assistant, Tomosaburo Hirano, wrote to Pauling again, thanking him for meeting with Ikeda and asking about the possibility of his composing a manuscript for publication in Japan.

Later in 1988, just about a year after their first meeting, Ikeda wrote to Pauling directly to express interest in co-authoring a dialogue in order to “provide some suggestion for the young generation who are to shoulder the responsibility in the 21st century, as well as serve the cause of peace and prosperity of humankind.” The dialogue would be published in an interview format, based on the transcript of their meeting in Los Angeles and supplemented by additional material. The first step toward completion was for Pauling to answer a series of seventy-three questions regarding his outlook on life. Pauling was interested in the project and promptly responded to the questionnaire.


pauling-ikeda-dialogue

Pauling and Ikeda in dialogue, 1987

Many of the questions developed for the dialogue concerned the evolution of Pauling’s views on war and peace over the course of his life. Pauling began by explaining that, as he was only thirteen years old when World War I started, he had few thoughts about international relations at the time. He did recall the conclusion of the war in 1918, as he participated in a victory parade held in Corvallis, Oregon, where he marched alongside other cadets serving in the Oregon Agricultural College Army Reserve Officers Training Corps.

By the dawn of the Second World War, Pauling was well-established in Pasadena, working at the California Institute of Technology. During the war years he directed much of his energy toward projects sponsored by the explosives division of the National Defense Research Committee, where his research was used to support the killing and maiming of enemy soldiers, including the Japanese. Though he would spend much of his life working to limit the amounts of human suffering on Earth, Pauling commented that he felt satisfaction at the conclusion of the war, heartened that Hitler “and his associates” had been denied their goal of gaining control of the planet.

Nonetheless, despite Pauling’s scientific support for the war effort, it was also the case that when J. Robert Oppenheimer asked him to head the Manhattan Project chemistry department at Los Alamos, he refused. Likewise, after the war’s end, it was the emerging development of nuclear weapons and the ongoing threat of nuclear war that prompted Pauling’s peace activism. Over time, this point of view evolved into a desire to eliminate all war from Earth.


lifelong-quest

In 1990, the agreement for the Japanese version of the Pauling-Ikeda dialogue, In Quest of the Century of Life, was finalized, and this version of the book was subsequently published. That same year, Pauling delivered a commemorative lecture at the second Soka University Pacific Basin Symposium, held at the Los Angeles campus of Soka Gakkai University.

Pauling used this talk to reflect on the genesis of his peace activism in some detail. Pauling recalled that, following the detonation of nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the public first became aware of the existence of nuclear weapons. In short order, businessmen’s clubs and other civic groups began to request that Pauling deliver after-dinner talks on the nature of these powerful new weapons. The talks were meant to be purely educational, according to Pauling, and focused mostly on the nature of atomic nuclei and nuclear energy.

Pauling soon discovered however, that as he gave more talks of this kind, he found himself ending them with a short commentary on war in general. In these, he expressed his hope that the existence of nuclear weapons would act as a deterrent to future conflicts, which would instead be handled by an international system of law. Albert Einstein had conveyed a similar sentiment as early as 1946.

1990i.34

Pauling speaking at Soka University, August 24, 1990.

But with the passage of time, as nuclear stockpiles grew and the magnitude of the bombs being produced increased from 20 kilotons to 20 megatons – more than a thousand times more powerful than the weapons used in Japan – Pauling and many others began to call for global disarmament. While this directive was partially heeded the world’s governments, many large militaries began looking for ways to profit on their slow but steady draw down in arms. As Pauling pointed out, this ambition led to sales of military surplus.

“What do we have going on in the world now?” Pauling queried at the podium.

Wars, a lot of wars. And thousands, tens of thousands of people killed every year in wars…And what does the United States do, and the Soviet Union do, and the Chinese People’s Republic? They all sell advanced military weapons to other countries, the underdeveloped countries, countries that have a lot of money because of oil.

Pauling’s rhetoric had sharpened over the years, and now, before a packed house in Los Angeles, he demanded a change from the military-industrial status quo that had emerged in the wake of the Second World War.

Now we are forced to eliminate from the world forever the vestige of prehistoric barbarism, this curse of the human race, war. We, you and I, are privileged to live at a time in the world’s history, this remarkable extraordinary age, the unique epoch in this history of the world, the epoch of demarcation between the past millennia of war and suffering and the future, the great future of peace, justice, morality, and human well-being. The world community will thereby be freed, not only from the suffering caused by war, but also from hunger, disease, and fear through the better use of the earth’s resources, the discoveries made by scientists and the efforts of human beings through their work. And I am confident that we shall, in the course of time, build a world characterized by economic, political and social justice for all persons and a culture worthy of man’s intelligence.


In 1991, the year following Pauling’s Soka University address, Linus Pauling and Daisaku Ikeda, along with Johan Galtung, the Norwegian founder of the discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies, signed the Oslo Appeal. This document urged the United Nations to require that nuclear member states issue a global, joint Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as well as a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; outlaw the production and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons; prohibit the international weapons trade; and sponsor an international conference to discuss the redirection of resources released through disarmament to support development in the Third World.

Subsequently, Linus Pauling received the Daisaku Ikeda Medal for Peace, awarded by Soka Gakkai International in 1992. Later that year, the English translation of his and Ikeda’s dialogue was published in the West under the title of A Lifelong Quest for Peace.

lp-exhibit

Visitors at the San Francisco opening of the “Linus Pauling and the Twentieth Century” exhibit, 1998.

Following Pauling’s death in 1994, Ikeda expressed a desire to honor his friend with a travelling exhibition that would be funded by Soka Gakkai’s resources. The exhibition was initially conceived of as a means for educating the public on ideas in chemistry and as a mechanism for introducing children to Pauling as a role model.

As it moved forward, the exhibit shifted toward honoring all facets of Pauling’s career as a humanitarian, activist, scientist, and medical researcher. Once finalized, the exhibit toured the world for six years. Millions of people saw it in Europe and Japan, as well as multiple locations in the United States, including Washington D.C., San Francisco, Boston, and Pauling’s birthplace, Portland, Oregon.

Pauling and Ikeda

DaisakuIkedaTokyoMay2010

Daisaku Ikeda, 2010

[Part 1 of 2]

“If the people are not misled by false statements by politicians and authorities, they will recognize the need for world peace and their own responsibilities in achieving this goal.”

-Linus Pauling, 1988

In August 1945, Daisaku Ikeda, a resident of Tokyo and the son of a seaweed farmer, witnessed first-hand the devastation that two nuclear bombs wrought upon his homeland. The experience instilled in Ikeda an insatiable yearning to understand and eliminate the sources of war.

In pursuing this ambition, Ikeda studied political science at what is now Tokyo-Fuji University, and committed himself to the pacifist lifestyle of a Nichiren Buddhist. Ikeda’s chosen faith, named after a twelfth-century priest who emphasized the Lotus Sutra as the authoritative text for adherents of Buddhism, was becoming extremely popular among East Asians following World War II. Fundamental to the practice’s message was a strong call to treat others with respect and compassion, recognizing that all will become Buddhas in the end.

Ikeda also joined a new religious organization called the Soka Gakkai, which followed the teachings of Nichiren, and ultimately became the group’s president in 1960. In his capacity as chief executive, Ikeda focused intently on opening Japan’s relationship with China, and establishing the Soka education network of humanistic schools from kindergarten through university. He also began writing a book titled The Human Revolution.

As his tenure moved forward, the Soka Gakkai grew into an international network of communities dedicated to peace and to cultural and educational activities. In 1975, Ikeda founded an umbrella organization known as Soka Gakkai International (SGI) to fund, direct the resources of, and help facilitate communication between the dispersed Soka Gakkai members. In the 1980s, he turned his attentions toward anti-nuclear activism and citizen diplomacy, and it was in this capacity that he came into close contact with Linus Pauling.


Pauling’s first interaction with SGI came in the early 1980s, by which time the non-governmental organization was already actively cooperating with the United Nations’ department of public information to mobilize citizens for mass movements demanding peace. Seeking to increase SGI’s influence in propelling the peace movement, Ikeda decided to initiate communications with Pauling, who was by now splitting the majority of his time at the family ranch in Big Sur, California and the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in Palo Alto. It was at the latter location where Ikeda’s associate, Mr. Tomosaburo Hirano, would make contact with and interview Dr. Pauling.

This meeting proved to be the first step in a lengthy “courtship” that involved extensive correspondence between Pauling’s secretary, Dorothy Munro, and Ikeda’s assistant, Hirano. Indeed, more than six years would pass before Pauling communicated directly with Ikeda and, a bit later on, finally meet Ikeda in person.

Over the course of those six years, Hirano met with Pauling for two more interviews, focusing primarily on Pauling’s views on peace, but also, to a lesser degree, on his scientific work. Extracts from these sessions were often published in the Seikyo Simbun Press – the Soka Gakkai’s daily newspaper in Japan – for which Hirano served as associate editor. The pieces typically highlighted Pauling’s work toward nuclear disarmament and were often published in tandem with Ikeda’s release of new strategic proposals bearing titles such as “A New Proposal for Peace and Disarmament” and “Toward A Global Movement for a Lasting Peace.”


pauling-ikeda

Pauling and Ikeda pictured together in an article published in the Kanagawa Shimbun newspaper, February 2005.

Finally, at the end of 1986, Pauling received a New Year’s card from Ikeda. The following year, during a trip to Los Angeles, Ikeda requested a personal meeting with Pauling, which Pauling obliged. Face to face at last, the two men developed an instant rapport with one another, quickly exhausting the allotted time for their meeting with discussion (aided by a translator) of a wide range of subjects: science, peace, childhood and adult life. The conversation even drifted into Pauling’s hobby of collecting and studying different editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Ikeda was fascinated by Pauling’s warm recollections of major figures such as Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, Bertrand Russell and, of course, Ava Helen Pauling, whose life and accomplishments Pauling cited as having been directly responsible for his peace activism. The two also talked about Pauling’s Nobel Peace Prize lecture, in which he had said that he believed the world had inevitably to move into a new period of peace and reason, that no great world war would again threaten the globe, and that problems should be solved by world law to benefit all nations and people.

In that same lecture, Pauling emphasized that, were it up to him, he would prefer to be remembered as the person who discovered the hybridization of bond orbitals, rather than through his work toward reducing nuclear testing and stimulating action to eliminate war. Nonetheless, Pauling considered the Nobel Peace Prize to be the highest honor that had ever received, in particular because of the onus that it placed upon him to continue that work. By contrast, Pauling felt that his Nobel Chemistry Prize, awarded in 1954, had plainly been earned for work already accomplished.

Over the course of their conversation, Ikeda also learned that being dedicated to peace, for Pauling, meant working toward the prevention of suffering for all human beings. In this, Pauling’s point of view as a humanist matched up well with Ikeda’s Buddhist philosophy. Specifically, Ikeda’s faith taught that one should regard others’ sufferings as their own and should seek out to eliminate it – a principle also expressed in the teachings of Christ, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and in the Analects of Confucius, and more generally known as the Golden Rule.

Though Pauling was an avowed atheist, Ikeda pointed out that he did not feel his own religion to be an impediment to his rationality – the same rationality that Pauling believed guided his own desire for peace. Rather, Ikeda argued that

Religions must make every effort to avoid both bias and dogma. If they fail in this, they lose the ability to establish a sound humanism and can even distort human nature. The twenty-first century has no need of religions of this kind.

So concluded the long-awaited first meeting between two men of like interests. The communications and collaborations that were still to come will be explored in our next post.

Dinner in Camelot: What an Evening 55 Years Ago Tells us Today

bio6.008.259

Science News Letter, May 12, 1962

[Ed Note: Today we are pleased to publish this guest post authored by Joseph A. Esposito, who served in three presidential administrations. His book on the Nobel Prize dinner will be published in 2018 by Fore Edge, an imprint of the University Press of New England.]

As the nation grapples with polarization and rancor, it is instructive to look at the state of discourse a half century ago.  Perhaps there is no better prism to do so than the dinner that President and Mrs. John F. Kennedy hosted for Nobel Prize winners and other American intellectuals fifty-five years ago, on April 29, 1962.

Coming at the mid-point of the Kennedy presidency, this dinner honored forty-nine Nobel laureates and spoke to the accomplishments of America while at the height of its power during the Cold War era. In the background, foreign and domestic challenges faced the country as the rivalry with the Soviet Union was intense and growing; race relations were frayed and becoming increasingly violent; and a number of important social issues were just emerging.

But there was optimism.  Certainly this dinner celebrated American achievement and a belief that the United States could tackle and surmount any problem.  And surely part of that feeling was due to the leadership exhibited by the president.  Kennedy, whatever his flaws, was a charismatic figure who used words to inspire while understanding the need to be conciliatory and pragmatic in dealing with public issues.

bio6.008.264a

Pasadena (California) Star-News, April 29, 1962

Prior to the dinner, Linus Pauling, the 1954 Nobel laureate in Chemistry, had been picketing the White House for the previous two days because of stalled nuclear test ban talks with the Soviet Union and the announcement that the United States would resume its own testing following a four-year halt.  After picketing on the Sunday that the event was to be held, Pauling and his activist wife, Ava Helen, changed for dinner and headed to the White House.

In the receiving line, Kennedy greeted Pauling cordially, commending him for expressing his views. Pauling was ambivalent about Kennedy, but enjoyed himself that evening, even leading the dancing.

As the dinner was being held, the Tony Awards were also being presented in New York.  The award for drama went to the play “A Man for All Seasons,” which is about Thomas More, who placed principle over loyalty to his government; Paul Schofield was honored with a Tony for his role as the lead character.  Linus Pauling might have smiled about the coincidence.  Pauling subsequently received a second Nobel Prize for Peace, the culmination of years’ worth of social activism such as he had exhibited that day.   A nuclear test ban agreement was signed in 1963.

bio6.008.262

Time, May 11, 1962.

James Baldwin was another guest at the White House dinner.  Baldwin, then thirty-seven years old, had already written several books, including Notes of a Native Son.  He would interact with Robert Kennedy at the Nobel event, and this conversation would have important implications for the civil rights movement.  One year later, Baldwin and Robert Kennedy met with African American leaders in New York.  The meeting was acrimonious, but it proved educational for the attorney general. Eighteen days later, President Kennedy delivered his famous civil rights speech in which he envisioned the future Civil Rights Act. As it turned out, his brother was alone among his advisors in supporting this televised address.

Also present at the White House gathering was J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had run afoul of McCarthyism and had his security clearance revoked by the Eisenhower administration. Having spent the past eight years in political purgatory, Oppenheimer was invited by Kennedy to the gala dinner.  The President understood the value of reconciliation and redemption; the following year, Kennedy selected the “Father of the Atomic Bomb” for the prestigious Fermi Award.

Indeed, the dinner brought together some of the nation’s greatest minds.  Among the collection of writers present were Robert Frost, Pearl Buck, John Dos Passos, William Styron, and Katherine Anne Porter, whose A Ship of Fools became the number one bestseller that day.  The scientists in the room included Glenn Seaborg, responsible for the discovery of ten elements; several others associated with the Manhattan Project; and a veritable who’s who of American physicists, chemists, biologists and medical researchers.  Astronaut John Glenn, the hero of the hour who had recently orbited the Earth, was also there.

bio6.008.264b

Much has been made about Camelot, a focus that will surely intensify during the upcoming centennial of John F. Kennedy’s birth. And while images of the 1,036-day presidency of the young leader will forever be intertwined with his untimely, tragic death, it is also clear that Kennedy could uplift the nation through soaring words, measured action, and the ability to bring together people who sought only America’s best interests.  A partisan when necessary, he also understood civility and the value of respectful dialogue.

So too was Linus Pauling a man who respected principal and the exchange of ideas.  While he appreciated that special evening in 1962 and had been hopeful of the young president’s potential, he was not reluctant to speak out about the great issues of the day. Above all, Linus Pauling was a distinguished scientist and a committed activist for peace.  He was truly “a man for all seasons.”  We can learn much from him as well.