"Profiles in Science: The Joshua Lederberg Papers"
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/BB/

J. Lederberg: The Disinterested Archivist

Click to Close this Informational Pop-up

An "archive" is an extensive record or collection of documents, photographs and other objects, held in a central collection usually with the purpose of preservation: for possible access, or possibly to prevent access.
.
In order to facilitate the gathering and preservation of all relevant material (not only the material that casts a favorable light upon the subject), the archivist should be someone who is unbiased, or even disinterested. It is not the archivist's duty to judge the subject of the archive, but to gather information, then preserve the material, and hopefully make it accessible. Archives begun while the subject is still alive and even gathered with the subject’s own assistance, are inevitably biased. As such, the items not selected, given away, deemphasized, or even purposely buried may be deemed more interesting than the items that are actually made available.
.
The National Library of Medicine, in accepting enthusiastic assistance and participation from Joshua Lederberg in the internment of his own archive, has succeeded in creating not so much an unbiased archive, as a well-orchestrated public relations website. As a consequence, much of historic value that could have been derived from Joshua Lederberg’s scientific papers, has (perhaps inadvertently) been destroyed.

Issues with the specific image(s) now being viewed
Published proposals or papers written by Esther M. Lederberg or Esther M. Zimmer are copyright-protected by Esther M. Lederberg or Esther M. Zimmer. Such published documents are fully available for use by Joshua Lederberg. Unpublished documents remain copyright-protected under Esther M. Lederberg or Esther M. Zimmer, could only be used by Joshua Lederberg if these documents were given by Esther M. Lederberg or Esther M. Zimmer to Joshua Lederberg. Alternatively, any proposals or documents expected to become published papers and given to various societies or organizations would be the property of those organizations (ie: never the property of an individual: Joshua Lederberg). Without timely written permissions, use of these documents by Joshua Lederberg would constitute theft.

1. Issues of Stewardship: Joshua Lederberg

Scope of material

In a 1991 oral history interview at Rockefeller University (see the NLM "Profiles in Science" site for Joshua Lederberg, document ID bbbdgm), Joshua Lederberg claimed to be selflessly concerned about the loss of documentation (resumes, notes, correspondence, etc.); not only documentation that directly pertained to him, but also to many other researchers. While Joshua claimed to be concerned with maintaining the historical record, the potential for conscious as well as unconscious or unknowing censorship is all too obvious. (Joshua Lederberg is not a disinterested party to his own archive.)
.
For example: At the time of their divorce in 1966, Joshua Lederberg was in possession of correspondence between other researchers and himself and Esther M. Lederberg, as well as correspondence between other researchers and Esther M. Lederberg alone. He was also in possession of items belonging only to Esther M. Lederberg, such as her Masters and Doctoral theses. Instead of making copies of correspondence available to Esther Lederberg, and returning her theses and other important papers, Joshua Lederberg "donated unconditionally" those papers and correspondence to Stanford University: buried relevant historical documents that were not his own property. See Esther M. Lederberg's September 16, 1970 request that photographs, theses, and copies or originals of correspondence from "Cavalli, Jacob, Wollman, Hayes, Stocker, etc." be returned, and Joshua Lederberg's immediate (September 17, 1970) refusal to return the stolen property, which he stated was now "the property of the Department (i.e. not me [Joshua Lederberg])".
.
(Interestingly enough, much of the correspondence and property that he claimed to have "donated" to his own Department at Stanford University, reappeared at his NLM "Profiles In Science" website. Thus, Joshua stole the property and correspondence in question a second time – this time, from his own Stanford University department. Take note: had Joshua Lederberg taken copies of the documents in question, the NLM would have to obtain permission from the Stanford University department where Joshua had donated them, to display these papers. No such permission is visible on the NLM website for Joshua Lederberg.)

Virtual censorship

The inflated scope of material that was in Joshua Lederberg’s possession at the time of its donation to the National Library of Medicine, adversely affects the historical record, as it makes it extremely difficult to piece together complete information about the collaborations of other researchers. Simply stated, the omitted documents destroys the full context of the remaining material of the other researchers. (This is called "bias".) Thus, it serves to obscure or even (effectively) censor the historical record. While it is true that records can be searched for at the NLM website for Joshua Lederberg, if found they must then be retrieved. It is much worse if the omitted documents must be searched for (if available) at many other archives at other locations throughout the world.
.
Another way of censoring is to make documents available, but in such poor condition that it is difficult to read the documents: specifically, by not using available methods to improve the legibility of images of the documents.
.
One must bear in mind that there is no way to know what documents have been placed in the physical NLM archive for Joshua Lederberg (whether in rightful possession or otherwise), but not been made public. For example, if a series of documents by several researchers pointed out something that might be unflattering to Joshua Lederberg (such that a particular claim he made was outright false or questionable), these might be hidden (censored).

2. Issues of Stewardship: National Library of Medicine

Poor or careless duplication

Much of the correspondence donated by Joshua Lederberg to the National Library of Science was several decades old. Often correspondence gets torn and may be patched together with transparent tape. In such cases, the tape discolors over time and begins to obscure the writing under the tape. One must take special care to restore or at least manually interpret or read the partially-obscured writing under the tape. Mechanically "scanning" the document without care for items that have holes or are taped together, will subject the document to the artificial reflectivity of the scanner. At times this can "black out" the entire strip of tape and all the writing underneath it. This effectively redacts the writing, thus partially destroying the value of the correspondence.
.
In other cases, the original documents were written on thin or translucent paper stock, such as "onionskin" paper. In such cases, if the correspondent(s) wrote or typed on both sides of the paper, the writing on the other side is visible, and can easily be confused with or obscure the writing on the side that is currently presented. No effort was made to enhance readability of such documents by reducing or eliminating the writing on the opposite side of the sheet.
.
Another form of poor stewardship takes place where documents age and discolor, and the writing fades. A conscientious steward makes attempts to enhance the fading writing on the image (not the original document): darkening the writing, increasing contrast, removing speckles ("noise" or dirt), etc., making writing that has become obscure, as legible as possible. Perhaps not all the writing will be lost.
.
Unfortunately, the NLM in many cases has not made this effort. The result is that many of the duplicated documents that are made available to the public, are effectively defaced; essentially rendered illegible (censored).

Removal of color

Colors may be very significant. For example, a document typed using a black ribbon produces black print, but often the correspondent may add further commentary by hand, using a different color ink. When more than one color ink is discernible, the possibility that one person wrote commentary multiple times, or even that multiple people wrote commentary, is addressible. Since the documents in the Joshua Lederberg archive were scanned in black and white, information was lost that might have been visible in color. Thus, the historical record is further compromised (censored).

Faulty indexing

The National Library of Medicine has coded the documents in Joshua Lederberg’s archive for easier retrieval via search. Unfortunately, many documents which were either from, or addressed to, Joshua and Esther Lederberg jointly, are not coded appropriately. Some documents that were addressed to both individuals are coded as having been addressed only to Joshua. This omission can be construed as a clerical mistake, and as such not malicious in intention, but it nevertheless obscures the historical record and makes rectifying the historical record difficult. (People must search the NLM archive for Joshua Lederberg very assiduously to locate these mistakes!) This is also a form of censorship.
.
In addition, there are several documents pertaining to "Esther Zimmer" which are not retrieved when searching for "Esther M. Lederberg", even though Esther M. Lederberg was Esther M. Zimmer before she and Joshua were married. Similarly, a search of documents for "Esther M. Lederberg" does not retrieve documents written by or otherwise pertaining to, Esther Zimmer. Thus, the searches are not reliable.
.
A final cause for confusion exists in the fact that Joshua's mother's name was also Esther; thus, it is easy to confuse "Esther Lederberg" (his mother) with "Esther Lederberg" (the research scientist). Once again, for a different reason, the searches are not reliable.

Destruction of context

Several researchers may engage in a conversation, sending correspondence back and forth between each other, stating their research results and posing questions to each other. The results of such conversation suggests further research. Thus, the historical record is not a single document, but a set of documents. If documents are removed from this set, the context of the research engaged in, is destroyed; we no longer know what the researchers were thinking and what they said to each other. Thus, a partial record may serve to censor the historical record of discovery, possibly to make a particular person appear more important.

Possible copyright infringement

Copyright applies to the author of a document or the originator of an object (such as a photograph). Thus, if "A" writes to "B", "A" holds the copyright to the letter, but does not own it (it has been given to B); "B" owns the document itself, but does not own the copyright (the right of reproduction). Should another person "C" (other than "A" or "B") wish to copy "A"'s letter to "B", then "C" must obtain copyright permissions from "A" and legally obtain the letter itself, from "B". If "C" were to steal the letter in qustion from "B", then even with "A"'s copyright permission "C" would be guilty of theft. This justifies the use of the phrase "intellectual piracy".
.
The distinctions made above are not vacuous. For example, this website displays a 1954 letter from Masahiko Oda to Esther M. Lederberg (only). The NLM states that they could not find the copyright holder (Dr. Masahiko Oda), yet displays a copy of this letter "courtesy of Joshua Lederberg". How did Joshua Lederberg get his copy of this letter? Did Esther M. Lederberg give Joshua Lederberg permission to copy her letter? In fact, Esther Lederberg asked for her property to be returned, and Joshua Lederberg refused. Thus, the NLM is in collusion with Joshua Lederberg regarding the theft of this document from Esther M. Lederberg. More: without Dr. Oda's permission to reproduce the document (or the institution for which Dr. Oda worked, which might inherit those rights after his death), the NLM was knowingly in violation of U.S. copyright law. Thus, the NLM is in collusion of theft and in violation of U.S. copyright law.
.
The NLM site for Joshua Lederberg claims to have obtained permission from nearly all the appropriate copyright holders of the documents it displays. However, they do not display the actual documents whereby this permission was granted. (Perhaps some of the permissions were granted purely orally, or perhaps they were imagined?) In all cases where permission is stated to have been obtained from Esther M. Lederberg, this claim is categorically false. (The NLM has written this itself! Examine the NLM's written admission that they never obtained permission from Esther M. Lederberg to use any of her correspondence or photographs, before she died. Furthermore, the Esther M. Lederberg Estate never granted such permission after her death.) The falsity of this claim, pervasive on the NLM website, calls all claims of appropriate permissions from any copyright holders into question.
.
It behooves the NLM to substantiate their claims of having obtained proper permission to display the documents on its websites for Joshua Lederberg and others. At this point in time (12/20/2010), all such permissions are in question. In addition, even with copyright permissions, ownership rights to documents are a separate matter. This is significant considering the written statement by Joshua Lederberg that he misappropriated (stole) Esther Lederberg's property (correspondence).

Collusion in theft

Joshua Lederberg's documented theft of the correspondence, photographs, and property of Esther M. Lederberg, as well as that of L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, Francois Jacob, Elie Wollman, William Hayes, Bruce A. D. Stocker and others, and the subsequent appearance of the correspondence on the NLM's "Profiles In Science" website for Joshua Lederberg, amounts to collusion on the part of the NLM, compounded by its fake permissions, that are never displayed on the site.

3. Are other NLM "Profiles In Science" sites equally compromised?

By gathering correspondence that perhaps did not belong to him, Joshua Lederberg potentially compromised the historical record regarding the research and relationships of literally hundreds of scientists. For a list of scientists whose papers were discovered in the NLM website for Joshua Lederberg, and where permission to display those papers and correspondence is dubious.
.
The issues of stewardship raised above should be strongly considered when accessing the other Profiles In Science websites created by the NLM, especially as they have a bearing on both Esther M. Lederberg's archive and Joshua Lederberg's Profiles in Science archive. To date (12/17/2010), these include:
  • Francis Crick
  • Arthur Kornberg
  • Salvador E. Luria
  • Barbara McClintock
  • Linus Pauling
  • Sol Spiegelman

4. Recommendations concerning the NLM "Profiles in Science" Website

For all the above reasons, it is highly recommended that the NLM "Profiles in Science" Web site be limited in use only as a secondary source of information.