326
PARTISAN REVIEW
research grants, and prizes, as by virtue of their spiri tual power, derived
from their apparent incorruptibility and integrity and their knack for iden–
tifYing the major scientific problems in want of solution. It was a major
function of theirs to set the proper tone. In addi tion to deriving inspira–
tion and incisive criticism from Bohr, his cadre of atomic physicists also
imbibed (and felt bound to practice) his "Copenhagen Spirit" of friend–
ship and cooperation. Though all but a few scientists will profess the
shibboleths of friendship and cooperation, they are more often honored in
their breach in disciplines that lack a Bohr-like master, who can keep order
among his disciples by dint of his generally accepted moral authority.
I myself imbibed the Copenhagen Spirit secondhand, when I became
a disciple of Niels Bohr's disciple, Max Delbriick, at Cal tech in the late
1940s. The main research focus of Delbruck's laboratory was on the mech–
anism of genetic self-replication, and it attracted many of the first
generation leaders of molecular biology before that discipline, which
would revolutionize life sciences in the twentieth century, even had a
name. Delbriick's disciples included James Watson, the discoverer of the
DNA double helix; Renato Dulbecco, the founder of quantitative animal
virology; Seymour Benzer, who reformulated the classical, abstract and
incoherent notion of the gene as a concrete molecular-genetic concept;
and Niels Jerne, who revolutionized immunology by putting forward his
natural selection theory of antibody formation.
It was largely Delbriick's influence that raised molecular biology to a
higher intellectual and ethical plane than biochemistry, which had many
laboratories in which excellent work was being done but lacked masters
wi th Delbriick's dominating presence. He brought order to molecular
biology by becoming its conscience. "What will Max think of it?" had
become the
Cretchenfrage
of the molecular-biological psyche, and receivi–
ing his praise counted more for his disciples' self-esteem than prizes,
promotions and election to academies. Since Max would see through all
dirty tricks, his approval could not be obtained by unethical or unmanner–
ly conduct, such as stealing ideas, exploiting students, or demanding
honorary authorship. Neither would he tolerate taking shortcuts, such as
drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from complex experiments or
putting forward incoherent theories, which might fool prize juries or acad–
emy members.
At the close of the twentieth century, almost all of the old master sci–
entists have disappeared, and, as far as I can tell, few young master scientists
have turned up to take their place. By this I don't mean to imply that there
are no more excellent scientists at work. On the contrary, there are more
of them than ever, running laboratories where well-trained, competent stu–
dents and postdocs are hard at work to make a mark for themselves. What
I do mean is that there are not many working scientists left who exert
