Leaving La Jolla

1969i23

Ava Helen and Linus Pauling near the beach at La Jolla, 1969.

[Pauling at UCSD, part 3 of 3]

In early 1969, Linus Pauling announced that he had accepted an appointment at Stanford University, and that he would be leaving the University of California, San Diego, where he had been on faculty for the past two academic years. In making this announcement, Pauling explained his feeling that Stanford would be a better fit for his orthomolecular research, in part because of the Palo Alto school’s well-established department of psychiatry. (Stanford was also significantly closer to the couple’s home at Deer Flat Ranch, which pleased Ava Helen Pauling immensely.)

Though Pauling and his colleagues had made significant progress on their psychiatric studies at UCSD, one problem that they had yet to conquer was the ability to control for other variables – especially those introduced by diet – that could contribute to variations in the levels of nutrients observed in test subjects’ bodies. Because of this, the group was not able to accurately track what Pauling called “individual gene defects.”

Moving the project to Stanford meant that the researchers would be afforded the opportunity to work with mental health patients at Sonoma State Hospital, all of whom were consuming the same diet, as provided by the Vivonex Corporation. Intrigued, Pauling coordinated with Vivonex to obtain copies of the diet that the company had tailored, the idea being that his control group could follow it as well.

By now, Pauling and his team felt confident that they had uncovered evidence of abnormal patterns of ascorbic acid elimination in individuals suffering from acute and chronic schizophrenia. He and his colleagues planned to continue their analyses of these abnormalities as they moved toward the identification of genetic defects, the creation of diagnostic tools, and the promotion of effective therapies for sufferers of mental disease.


bio6.009.109

San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 1969

Pauling’s final act at UCSD was appropriately radical. Shortly after the student occupation of People’s Park at UC-Berkeley and the subsequent death of James Rector, a Berkeley student who was shot by Alameda County Sherrifs in May 1969, UCSD students and faculty gathered to decide how they would respond to the tragedy at their sister school. Most of the faculty in attendance expressed a desire to simply mourn the death and voice their solidarity with Berkeley, but not to disrupt daily operations.

Pauling, on the other hand, stood in front of the hundreds of students who had gathered and encouraged them to go on strike in protest of recent actions taken by the National Guard, the police, and Governor Ronald Reagan. In so doing, Pauling claimed that the violence at Berkeley was

part of a pattern—the pattern of the war in Vietnam, the increasing militarism of the United States, the growth of the military-industrial complex, the suppression of the human rights of young men and others.

He further explained that those who held power would do whatever was necessary to protect and move forward with a deeply cynical plan. And in detailing his point of view, Pauling made it clear where he stood with regard to the next appropriate actions.

The plan is the continued economic exploitation of human beings. The purpose of the plan, which has been successful year after year, is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer…Everyone in the whole University of California, all the students, the faculties, the employees, should strike against the immorality and injustice of the act at Berkeley.

Less than a week later, Pauling participated in a march and rally at the State Capital in Sacramento, where he gave an impromptu speech that echoed his remarks in San Diego. “The university is not the property of Governor Reagan and the other regents,” he exhorted. “We must protest until the police and the National Guard are removed from the campus of the University of California…the university belongs to us, the students, the faculty, and the people.” So concluded Pauling’s final remarks on the UC system and its regents while a member of the UC faculty.


Although Pauling never worked within the University of California again, his short time at UCSD was undeniably productive and useful. For one, his two years in La Jolla marked a reemergence, of sorts, into the scientific realm following his frustrating tenure at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

UCSD also provided the opportunity for Pauling to incubate his partnership with Arthur Robinson. This relationship later proved key to the creation of the Institute for Orthomolecular Medicine, known today as the Linus Pauling Institute. The collaboration also provided a strong foundation from which Pauling worked doggedly to expand his research on all manner of topics related to orthomolecular medicine. Though the work ultimately proved to be very controversial, as he left La Jolla, Pauling had every reason to be optimistic about the bold new direction that his research was taking.

Advertisements

Pauling at UCSD: Season of Tumult

 

bio6.009.060

[Part 2 of 3 in a series exploring Linus Pauling’s years on faculty at the University of California, San Diego.]

As his program on orthomolecular psychiatry began to take off, Pauling’s work as an activist moved forward with as much zeal as ever. Despite criticism that his association with the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI) and his protests against the Vietnam War made no sense in the context of his scientific career, Pauling had stopped viewing his interests as an activist and his scientific research as being separate branches of a single life.

Pauling happened to be at the University of Massachusetts a mere five days after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Invited to deliver a series of lectures as the university’s first Distinguished Professor, Pauling fashioned his remarks around the topic of the human aspect of scientific discoveries. Reflecting on the tumult of the previous week, Pauling told his audience that it was not enough to mourn the fallen civil rights leader. Rather, individuals of good conscience were obligated to carry King’s legacy forward by continuing the work that he began.

In keeping with this theme over the course of his lectures, Pauling emphasized the scientist’s responsibility to ensure that discoveries be used for the good of all humanity and society, rather than in support of war and human suffering. Scientific inquiry should also emphasize solutions to current issues, he felt, pointing to the lack of equality in access to medical care in the United States as one such issue. Pauling saw his work in orthomolecular medicine as potentially solving this problem: vitamins were fairly inexpensive, more accessible, and could, he believed, significantly improve one’s mental and physical well-being.


1968s.5

Notes used by Pauling for his talk, “The Scientific Revolution,” delivered as a component of the lecture series, “The Revolutionary Age, the Challenge to Man,” March 3, 1968.

Pauling made similar connections to his work on sickle cell anemia.

Though he was no longer involved in the daily operations of the CSDI, he continued to participate in a public lecture series that the center sponsored throughout his time in San Diego. In one contribution to a series titled “The Revolutionary Age: The Challenge to Man,” Pauling put forth a potential solution to sickle cell disease. As science had succeeded in identifying the gene mutation responsible for the disease, Pauling believed that forms of social control could be used to prevent carriers of the mutation from marrying and procreating. Over time, Pauling reasoned, the mutation would eventually be phased out.

Pauling specifically called for the drafting of laws that would require genetic testing before marriage. Should tests of this sort reveal that two heterozygotes (individuals carrying one normal chromosome and one mutation) intended to marry, their application for a license would be denied. Pauling put forth similar ideas about restricting the number of children that a couple could have if one parent was shown to be a carrier for sickle cell trait.

In proposing these ideas, Pauling aimed to ensure that his discovery of the molecular basis of sickle cell disease was used to decrease human suffering. Likewise, he felt that whatever hardships the laws that he proposed might cause in the short run, the future benefits accrued from the gradual elimination of the disease would justify the legislation.

Partly because he called this approach “negative eugenics,” Pauling came into harsh criticism for his point of view; indeed, his ideas on this topic remain controversial today. In a number of the lectures that he delivered around the time of his CSDI talk, however, Pauling took pains to clarify that his perspective was not aligned with the broader field of eugenics, a body of thought to which he was opposed. On the contrary, Pauling’s focus was purely genetic and his specific motivation was borne out of a desire to eliminate harmful genetic conditions.


Bruno

Bruno Zimm. Credit: University of California, San Diego

At the end of February 1968, Pauling turned 67 year old, and the University of California regents used his age as a mechanism to hold up discussions about his obtaining a permanent appointment in San Diego. Sixty-seven, the board argued, was the typical retiring age within the UC system. Moreover, the UC regents were empowered to veto any age-related retirement exceptions and, given his radical political views, Pauling was unlikely to receive any support at all from the group, much less an exception.

One of the stated reasons why the regents harbored concerns about Pauling’s politics was his increasingly strident rhetoric. Pauling frequently commended student strikes and demonstrations, and although he emphasized nonviolence as the most effective means to foster social change, he encouraged students to recognize that authorities may incite violence through tactics of their own. In these cases, he felt that retaliation was justified, even necessary.

Pauling also believed that the regents and their trustees wielded too much power; for him they were part of a system that largely inhibited social progress and took power away from students. For their part, the regents saw Pauling in a similar light: a dangerously powerful radical who was constraining the university’s capacity to grow.

Realizing that, in all likelihood, Pauling was soon to be forced out, his UCSD colleagues Fred Wall and Bruno Zimm began searching for a way to shift the governing authority for his reappointment to the university president, Charles Hitch, with whom Pauling had maintained a positive relationship. After months of negotiations, Zimm succeeded in winning for Pauling a second year-long appointment.

Pauling expressed gratitude to Zimm for his efforts, but the slim possibility of a permanent position at UCSD had emerged as a source of lingering dismay. Looking for a longer term academic home, Pauling began considering other universities that might also provide better support for his research.

Over time, Ava Helen had also found herself frustrated with UCSD and La Jolla in general. In particular, she disliked their rental house and missed their previous home in Santa Barbara, where she had been able to tend a beautiful garden. As 1968 moved forward, the couple began spending more and more time at Deer Flat Ranch, with Ava Helen hinting that she would like to make the ranch their permanent home in the coming years.

Pauling at UC-San Diego

bio6.009.035

[Part 1 of 3]

We have written previously about Linus Pauling’s affiliation with the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI), and also of the difficulties that he encountered in what ultimately proved to be a doomed attempt at securing a position at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1964. Over the next three weeks, we will focus on the years that Pauling spent at the University of California, San Diego, the institution where he began his experimental work in orthomolecular medicine. As we will see, Pauling’s tenure at UCSD, though short-lived, offered him the opportunity to pursue a mission that he had initially sought out, and failed to obtain, at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions: the application of scientific and medical research to political and social issues.


In 1966, UCSD Vice Chancellor for Research Fred Wall, an accomplished chemist who was eager to rectify the disappointment that Pauling had experienced with UC-Santa Barbara, invited Pauling to join the faculty at UC-San Diego. Pauling was initially hesitant. He remembered all too well the hostility that informed University of California Chancellor Vernon Cheadle’s refusal to consider his appointment at UCSB, a position that was fully supported by the UC regents. This history fresh in mind, Pauling saw no reason why he would be permitted to teach at UCSD; afterall, his political views hadn’t changed over the past two years and he’d become, if anything, even more vocal about them.

This time, however, Pauling’s case received far more support. For one, UCSD’s chancellor, John Galbraith, fought hard to garner faculty endorsement of a petition that aimed to

urge that every effort be made not only to induce him to accept the present appointment assured for one year, but also to press with all means possible for its renewal for whatever periods Dr. Pauling and the faculty involved agree to be appropriate.

Galbraith likewise went out of his way to praise Pauling’s excellent lecturing ability as being a potential asset to faculty and students alike. Similarly, he affirmed that Pauling’s appointment would prove valuable not only to the chemistry department, but to the physics and biology departments as well. In due course, faculty in all three departments signed the petition and the chemistry department unanimously voted in favor of Pauling’s appointment.

Pauling, buoyed by this strong show of support, accepted a one-year appointment with the university, a contract that carried with it the understanding that a tenured position might be offered in the coming years, so long as the UC regents didn’t interfere.


A letter from Ava Helen Pauling to her son Peter, as well as a statement made by Pauling in the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Newsletter, indicate that his initial take on UCSD was a positive one. Perhaps most importantly, the university offered him the means to return to scientific research, a clear source of invigoration following two years at the CSDI, which was not capable of providing him with adequate lab space. In her letter to Peter, Ava Helen confirmed this new feeling of enthusiasm, particularly as it was coupled with exciting, if nascent, investigations on orthomolecular topics. Pauling himself called UCSD a “first-rate” institution and expressed his satisfaction with the top scientific and medical researchers who had made it their academic home.

It didn’t take long for Ava Helen to find a house to rent in La Jolla and shortly thereafter, in September 1967, Pauling arrived at his new office on the UCSD campus. In their initial meetings, Bruno Zimm, the chemistry department chairman at the time, encouraged Pauling to develop customized coursework that might explore specialized subjects of Pauling’s choosing over the upcoming terms. Pauling replied that it was his preference to focus predominantly on research, as his salary was coming entirely from research funds. He remained active on campus however, participating enthusiastically in a lecture series targeting first year students.


1967i17

Linus Pauling, 1967.

Shortly after settling in, Pauling began partnering with Arthur Robinson, a former student at Caltech, and now an assistant professor in the UCSD biology department. Together, the duo would tackle Pauling’s latest research quest: an exploration of orthomolecular medicine. This fruitful collaboration eventually led to their co-founding of the Institute for Orthomolecular Medicine, now known as the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University.

Pauling’s research was being supported by UCSD as well as lingering funds from CSDI, but soon it became clear that his team would need additional resources. As he delved further into his orthomolecular program, Pauling estimated that the work that he had in mind would take at least five years, a length of time that was extended, in part, by the small size of his research team. In addition to Pauling and Robinson, the UCSD group consisted of two lab technicians (Sue Oxley and Maida Bergeson), a post-graduate resident (Ian Keaveny), and two graduate students (John and Margaret Blethen).

When applying for grants, Pauling described his research as seeking to discover better diagnostic and treatment methods for mental illness. In his applications, Pauling asked mainly for equipment funds, and he usually received what he wanted. Pretty quickly, his team found that vapor-phase chromatography – a process that had been suggested by Robinson at the outset of the project – was the most effective technique for engaging in quantitative analysis, and the grant applications that followed sought to enhance these capabilities in the laboratory.

Pauling’s goal during these first years was to uncover and establish a link between mental illness and deficiencies of various vitamins. At the outset, the team specifically planned to look at the correlation between fluctuations in mental health and variations in intake of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), nicotinic acid (B3), cyanocobalamin (B12), and pyridoxine (B6). Pauling believed that the brain and nervous system were especially sensitive to molecular composition and structure, and that certain mental illnesses were actually a problem of localized cerebral deficiency. This was, in essence, the guiding principle behind much of the team’s work.

Pauling also felt that schizophrenia had not received adequate scientific study, and so the group decided to focus their primary research on schizophrenics. If all went according to plan, the following three years would be devoted to developing diagnostic tools to identify deficiencies as well as effective therapies for correcting the deficiencies. The researchers would also use this time to explore the impact and consequences of other vitamin deficiencies. Though enthusiastic about this program, in several of his publications and speeches on the topic Pauling took pains to present orthomolecular therapy as being an adjunct to, and not a replacement for, traditional methods such as psychoanalysis, antipsychotics, and antidepressants.


During the CSDI years, Pauling’s grant funding from the National Science Foundation had been continuously delayed, largely because he didn’t have a lab in which to conduct the work. Once he was established at UCSD however, the NSF was quick to award him the grant money that he’d long ago requested. Pauling also received funding from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and additional monies from the CSDI were likewise set aside, should he need them.

The group began working in earnest in late 1967, focusing on measurements of vitamin absorption, and by April 1968, Pauling had published his introductory paper, “Orthomolecular Psychiatry,” in Science. The article, which proved influential, drew from the existing literature, focusing especially on a study by Abram Hoffer and Humphry Osmond, who had reported improvement in mentally ill patients treated with a regimen of nicotinic acid and nicotinamide.

In short order, Pauling began to receive a growing volume of letters from community members who had been directly or indirectly affected by mental illness. Pauling took care in replying to these correspondents, often pointing them toward additional resources for more information and encouraging them to write again if they had further questions. The response from medical researchers and physicians to Pauling’s paper was mixed; on the whole, they remained largely unimpressed with Pauling’s work. Nonetheless, Pauling never failed to emphasize the importance of his research, and the general public responded favorably to this confidence.

A Return to Scientific Theory

bio6.009.037

[Part 6 of 6 in a series examining Pauling’s association with the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions]

One of Linus Pauling’s hopes during his time at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI) was to collaborate with neighboring institutions, such as branches of the University of California, and perform scientific research while contributing to the Center’s discussions on world peace. Pauling joined the Center because he believed that science should be used to address social issues and to offer solutions to the problems facing society. Pauling was optimistic of the support and independence that he would enjoy at the Center in support of his ambitions. Upon their arrival to Santa Barbara, however, Ava Helen Pauling expressed the fear that her husband might find the CSDI “too superficial.”

Ava Helen’s prediction, as it turned out, was basically correct, and more and more her husband found himself disappointed by his inability to progress his scientific research. Originally he had hoped to use the scientific method to tackle world affairs but, as he soon realized, the Center preferred to focus on appeals to the public rather than programs of research. His options for joining neighboring institutions to perform scientific work were also quite limited. Importantly, the University of California rejected Pauling’s application for an adjunct position at UC Santa Barbara because of his controversial politics. By August 1965, only two years after being hired by the CSDI and just one year after moving to Santa Barbara, Pauling was writing letters to the Center’s president, Robert Hutchins, asking to spend less time at CSDI headquarters so that he might advance his scientific work from a new base – the Pauling ranch at Big Sur.


Figure from "The close-packed-spheron theory and nuclear fission," Science, October 1965.

Figure from “The close-packed-spheron theory and nuclear fission,” Science, October 1965.

Pauling spent much of his time away from Santa Barbara developing a new model of the atom, which he called the close-packed-spheron model of atomic nuclei. This theory of nuclear structure was published in four different articles (“Structural significance of the principal quantum number of nucleonic orbital wave functions,” Phys. Rev. Lett., September 1965; “Structural basis of neutron and proton magic numbers in atomic nuclei,” Nature, October 1965; “The close-packed-spheron model of atomic nuclei and its relation to the shell model,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., October 1965; and “The close-packed-spheron theory and nuclear fission,” Science, October 1965) each of which addressed different implications of the theory.

Pauling’s work dealt with “magic numbers” and nuclear subshells. Previously it was known that magic numbers describe the quantity of protons and neutrons that make an atom particularly stable. Pauling’s theory, however, suggests that the “magic” qualities associated with these numbers of nuclear components corresponds to the filling of nuclear “spherons,” or nuclear sub-units where protons and neutrons are arranged. (These spherons or sub-units were also referred to as shells in previous theories.) The close-packed theory therefore suggests that nuclear components form clusters rather than arranging as independent particles.

The close-packed-spheron model was based on the earlier nuclear shell theory. Pauling took the nuclear shell theory a step further by attempting to explain why specific numbers of protons and neutrons cause greater nuclear stability. The close-packed-spheron model states that the lower magic numbers represent atoms in which the first or second nuclear shells are filled, and that higher magic numbers correspond to a special “mantle” shell; that is, a hybridized shell that can form if greater amounts of nuclear components arrange into spheres.

In developing his model, Pauling was trying to explain the arrangement of nuclear components by simplifying previous theories and applying the principles of electron orbitals to protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus. Pauling’s past work had helped to establish the principles of electron orbital hybridization, and he hoped that this new work would yield similar fruit for the atomic nucleus. If such were the case, it would then be possible to explain the stability of atoms with magic numbers and the geometric arrangement of protons and neutrons.

Pauling’s close-packed theory was interesting and relatively simple; however, it failed to spark interest among many other scientists. For the next several years, Pauling continued to advocate for the theory and, in June 1974, he applied for a National Science Foundation grant to support further theoretical research on the structure of atomic nuclei. The application was denied and Pauling turned his attentions elsewhere.


bio6.009.035

The development of the close-packed-spheron theory and the lack of attention that it received from the scientific community are emblematic of the difficulties that Pauling experienced during his affiliation with the CSDI. The limited resources available to Pauling during this time enabled only theoretical investigations on subjects with which he was already at least somewhat familiar. And his official connection with an institution that existed well out of the scientific mainstream stifled his ability to engage with his scientific peers on a regular basis.

Pauling was only at the CSDI until 1967, and towards the end of his tenure there his eagerness to return to the sciences only grew. Other publications from the period focused on molecular protein structure and the chemical bond. As with the structure of atomic nuclei, these topics were, again, among those that he had researched prior to moving to Santa Barbara.  Once he found a new scientific home, the University of California at San Diego, Pauling began new investigations in medical chemistry which ultimately led to his famous fascination with vitamin C.

Pauling’s switch to a scientific focus could be interpreted as stemming from a waning interest in world affairs, but his papers show that it was the limitations that he encountered at the CSDI that led him to return to more scientific pursuits. World affairs remained central to Pauling’s activities and continued to lay claim to large pieces of his time, especially as the war in Vietnam escalated throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. Pauling was interested in developing ideas that could lead the world towards peace, while the Center was primarily a think tank that often focused more on discussion rather than reaching conclusions. In the end, superficial or not, the CSDI simply was not the institution for Linus Pauling.

 

Lawrence Badash, 1934-2010

Lawrence Badash speaking at the 2007 Pauling conference held at Oregon State University.

We were very sorry to learn of the death of Dr. Lawrence Badash, professor emeritus in the history of science at the University of California, Santa Barbara.  Dr. Badash died on August 23, 2010 after a short bout with cancer.

It was our good fortune to work with Dr. Badash on a handful of occasions.  Most recently he participated in our 2007 conference “The Scientist as Educator and Public Citizen: Linus Pauling and His Era,” held in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Pauling’s publication of the seminal text General Chemistry.  Badash’s contribution to the proceedings was a typically thoughtful and intriguing talk titled “Science in the McCarthy Period: Training Ground for Scientists as Public Citizens.”  In it, he argued that

Demagoguery functions much like a preemptive strike: ‘Flag wavers’ paint those who may be effective opponents as unpatriotic. This occurred during the period 1945-1960, as Joseph McCarthy and others stirred fears of Communist influence in the United States. At first lauded for their creation of the atomic bomb and other World War II activities, scientists increasingly were criticized for their international orientation and left-leaning politics. American scientists were sometimes denied passports, foreign scientists were often deprived of visas, barriers were erected to prevent the exchange of information, jobs were lost. But scientists fought back, occasionally changing policy or at least embarrassing officialdom. Such efforts reinvigorated a flagging sense of the need for political participation among scientists.

Several years before the 2007 conference, Badash conducted extensive research in the Personal Safe series of the Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Papers.  Badash was specifically interested in investigating the near-appointment of Linus Pauling at UC-Santa Barbara in 1964.

As published in Physics in Perspective 11 (2009): 4-14, Badash found that Pauling himself actively solicited an appointment at UCSB.  Having left the California Institute of Technology following the organization’s chilly reaction to Pauling’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, and dissatisfied with the resources available to him at his next stop, the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Pauling began looking toward UCSB, which was located not far away from the CSDI.

Pauling’s offer was to work without salary, (Xerox inventor and Caltech physics alum Chester Carlson had agreed to provide financial support for Pauling’s work) spending three-quarters of his time on scientific matters and one-quarter on “peace work.”  He would occupy an office at Santa Barbara and act as “essentially a full-time Professor of Chemistry…. but not present any regular courses of lectures.”

This offer was met with resistance from UCSB Chancellor Vernon Cheadle, who did not inform the university’s chemistry faculty of Pauling’s proposal and ultimately refused to even file the paperwork necessary for the offer to come under preliminary review by the University of California.   Though the era of McCarthy had passed by 1964, fears of controversial individuals with supposedly radical ties were still heavily prevalent in certain circles.  Badash notes

Throughout 1964, minutes of meetings of the UC Regents contain a number of references to academic freedom, while urging that speakers at the university be acceptable.  Clearly, the board was uncomfortable having Communists speak on campuses.  Ronald Reagan, who would run for governor in 1966, was making a name for himself condemning the recklessness of the free-speech movement and, by implication, the Regents.

Pauling fought for an appointment for nearly a year, even appealing to then-Governor Pat Brown to intercede on his behalf.  His pleas fell upon deaf ears though – in this climate, there would be no position at Santa Barbara.

One year later, however, Pauling did find an advocate in chemist Joseph E. Mayer, who invited the double Nobel laureate to join the staff of a different UC school – the University of California, San Diego.  Backed by signed petitions submitted by the university’s departments of chemistry, physics and biology, Pauling was appointed professor in residence and research chemist beginning July 1, 1967.  He would stay at UCSD for two years, before resigning in protest of Governor Reagan’s educational policies and moving on to Stanford.

Badash saw UC-Santa Barbara’s failure to hire Pauling as a “bungled opportunity.”  In concluding his 2009 article he suggests

Since UCSD was able to appoint Pauling for at least the first year, without needing regential approval, UCSB must have had the same authority.  Chancellor Vernon Cheadle may not have wished to exercise that authority, or, more likely, the idea of a one-year appointment was not raised in 1964.  Both UCSB and UCSD were relatively new campuses, with chancellors who were sensitive to the political climate in the state and especially among the Regents.  As might be expected, on both campuses the faculty members seemed more concerned with the quality of their departments.  Some faculty, recalling that period, felt that Pauling was a disruptive person who would not necessarily have been a good colleague.  Yet, his presence would instantly have raised the UCSB Department of Chemistry’s stature, then and now the bottom line.

Lawrence Badash’s papers have been deposited with the UC-Santa Barbara Special Collections.  The finding aid is available here.  An excellent obituary published by the Santa Barbara Independent is also online.