blem. (After all that is what both of us are interested in.)
By the way, please send me a reprint of the paper when it comes out.
I guess I am really hepped up on this, because I've just got to point
out for emphasis other incidences usually of a type that involved
missing a whole organ in dissections or a tissue structure in histology
only on the _first_ study, and then re-reading the assignment--after
knowing what to look for--and _subsequently finding it exactly where it
is said to be_. (Ever hunt for an unknown quality--or quantity?) _So it
was there all the time_, sloppy technique? Or is this branching at a
control point? _cf._ LC: C. vs. B. p. 251.
To get back to my thesis research, the pieces of equipment that I have
been using in the research are fairly standard in physiological
research: a Beckman spectrophotometer, a Coleman photometer, a van Slyke
amino nitrogen apparatus, a Warburg respirometer, pH meters, Kjeldahls,
Thunbergs, et cetera. Mostly, I'm in the process of getting used to
them. Also there is a high voltage X-ray generator, U. V. source and
other equipment for irradiation purposes. We also have an A. E. C.
license so that we can get at least microcurie amounts of the usual
isotopes for radioautographic work.
Now the literature in my area is pretty controversial. (You can
appreciate _that_, especially since Bergbottom at the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute bombarded you with criticisms of your theories.) Different and
actually contradictory results have been obtained for the same substance
in the same organism, _e. g._ alkaline phosphatase in the frog liver
cell (Monnenblick, '55, Tripp, '56, and Stone, '57). To give an example,
when I start a run for respiration effects using a Warburg I don't know
what results to expect. Whenever this has been the case, my results have
been confusing ... to say the least.
On nitrogen-mustard treated cells, in some instances the controls
respired significantly _more_--even with a statistical analysis of
variance--in some instances the _experimentals_ respired significantly
more; and in other cases the respiration for both was _exactly_ the
same--even _closer_ than the expected deviations that should be found in
any random population. One run, the blank run, _containing no cells_ ...
and grease-free ... consumed the greatest amount of oxygen. To cut this
letter short, the same inconstancies apply to other trials that I have
made. Whenever I didn't know what to expe
|