I9I2] Editoriais $77 



We formally invite contributions to oiir editorial pages. We 

 wish to make the Bulletin an open coiirt for the presentation and 

 consideration of any and all matters of interest to chemical biolo- 

 gistSj and of influence on the advancement of hiochemical science, 

 at honte and abroad. 



We append a few quotations, from letters written by colleagues, 

 which are related to this invitation: 



1. " It Struck me as not only odd but rather foolish to open an 

 important biochemical Journal with a portrait of a woman, a biography 

 of a woman and a contribution by a woman. ... I have since con- 

 cluded to congratulate you on your serene indifference to the narrow 

 view of those, like myself, who know that such considerations should 

 have no influence in scientific affairs, but who cannot readily overcome 

 the uncomfortable eft'ects of long Standing prejudice." 



2. "Altho I believe Wiley is a born charlatan, as you know, I 

 read with interest and, I am glad to add, with profit the editorial about 

 him in the last number of the Bulletin (page 523). I. O. N. (I'm 

 'on') evidently did his best, from an intimate (?) knowledge of the 

 Situation, to see all sides of the case and I think it is highly to your 

 credit to afford opportunity for expression of opinions on such ' diffi- 

 cult' matters, whether you agree with them or not. ... I am now 

 considering the preparation of an exposure of current methods (in 

 various biochemical and other types of laboratories) by which junior 

 workers are shamefully robbed of credit due them by pirate chiefs 

 who bend all their energies to seif glorification. If you conclude to 

 publish your editorial pages in an early issue on asbestos sheets, let 

 me know and I'll forward a ' blast ' on this theme that will do some 

 good — or kill the Bulletin." 



3. . . . " But what I really wanted to send you this note for was to 

 comment on the excellent spirit which, as editors, you put into the 

 Bulletin. You seem to have determined to make it a forum for open 

 discussion, and without wishing to do anyone an injustice. So far as 

 I know, only one other scientific editor of our acknowledged publica- 

 tions really does that. . . . This matter of open Journals in the United 

 States really strikes me as a far more important subject of discussion 

 than any question in science itself." 



4. " I understand that several very influential members of the 

 American Biochemical Society (great admirers of Ben Zoate, too) 

 consider that your editorial on a professional code of ethics (page 

 527) proves there is no need of or occasion for a biochemical Journal 



