00:00:00GORTLER: [...] I'd like to start with your childhood and hear about the kinds ofthings that might have induced you to become a scientist and to lead anextremely active career. While reading about your various activities, I became exhausted.

You were born in New Jersey in 1913. Tell me something about your family, aboutyour brothers and sisters. Were you not the first child in your family?

PRICE: I was the first of five. I had three sisters and a brother.

00:01:00While still quite young I felt pressured to become either a doctor or anengineer. My grandmother, Sarah Shoemaker Farley, wanted me to become a doctor.Her husband and son were M.D.'s. When I lost my hand at the age of six, however,she realized that I couldn't become a doctor. I had had no desire to take upthat profession anyhow. The second pressure came from my father, who was anengineer. It affected my brother; he became an engineer. Furthermore, I thoughtthat when I went to college I would become a chemical engineer.

GORTLER: You already had those leanings?

PRICE: I was certainly leaning very much towards science. When I was at GeorgeSchool, I took all of the science and math that I could. Those were my favorite subjects.

My grandmother also influenced me. Even though I never became a doctor, shehelped me to appreciate the biological sciences.

00:02:00[Untranscribed material about Price's grandmother, 1:42 – 2:14]

While still in grade school, I lived with her for a year or two and went to all kinds of biological clubmeetings with her. So, I got exposed to biological science when very young.

As you see, I was naturally inclined to go into science and receivedencouragement to do so. One person, not yet mentioned, influenced me to become achemist. He, Jerry Creighton, was my professor at Swarthmore. He was quite aninteresting physical chemist who had done a lot of electrochemistry. He hadwritten a major textbook on electrochemistry and had filed the patents thatAtlas used to reduce sugars to sorbitols. He said, "There's no sense being a00:03:00chemical engineer. You might as well study chemistry, and if you still want tobe a chemical engineer you'll be a better chemical engineer." So, he steered meinto chemistry. Needless to say, I never went back to chemical engineering.

Jerry Creighton had a very interesting philosophy about recommending hischemistry majors for graduate school.

He did not recommend them to the same graduate school. He said, "The best one ofyou will get an assistantship or scholarship and the other three won't getanything." There were four chemistry majors who graduated with me fromSwarthmore. He therefore made us draw lots for the big three, Harvard, Princetonand Yale. I drew Princeton. The fellows who drew Harvard and Yale got00:04:00assistantships, but I didn't hear from Princeton until a month before the fallsemester was to begin. By then I was enrolled at Harvard.

Let me tell you how I finally went to Harvard. At that time, Swarthmore had asystem of outside honors exams. Louis Fieser, the other major influence on mycareer, was my outside organic examiner. He found out that I had noassistantship or any other form of financial assistance to fund my studies atgraduate school. Obtaining support was quite important for me because thecountry was suffering then from the effects of the Depression. Fieser apparentlyliked what I did for him on the organic exam and at the orals because I wasoffered a scholarship to go to Harvard two weeks later. I hadn't even appliedfor it. I decided to accept the scholarship and, of course, to work for Louis Fieser.

GORTLER: Did you decide to work for him because he'd been your examiner, or did00:05:00you look around when you got to Harvard.

PRICE: Well, I looked around a little bit, but I was very grateful to LouisFieser for what he'd done for me, and other things being equal, I was going towork for him.

GORTLER: I guess that the other organic chemist, Bartlett, got there about thetime that you did and that he was young.

PRICE: Bartlett and Kohler were there.

GORTLER: That's essentially it, I think, because Conant had just become president.

PRICE: He was president. I was interested in physical chemistry approaches andhad an interesting interview with Louis. He gave me all of the synthetic organicthings to do and I kept saying, "Yes, yes, what else?" After giving me half adozen organic synthesis problems, he finally assigned me one on the mechanism ofaddition and substitution of bromine with aromatics, particularly thephenanthrene ring system. I jumped at that, because it was more mechanistic. Of00:06:00course, I got a lot of help from Paul Bartlett, because he was working onbromination at that time. Louis was my supervisor, however, and I did a lot ofsynthesis, to make substituted phenanthrenes in order to measure the effect ofdifferent substituents on the reaction. Twice a day, every morning andafternoon, Louis would come into the lab and ask, "What's new?"

GORTLER: That's the way he ran his group?

PRICE: That's the way he ran his research group. He came around twice a day,morning and afternoon, and his first question was, "Well, what's new?"

GORTLER: Did you feel that you had to have something for him? I guess you did.There's a story that goes around, maybe a legend, that you bet Fieser that youcould finish up in two years.

PRICE: I don't know whether I bet him, but I did finish.

GORTLER: Yes. I know that you did. It was an absolutely incredible feat.

00:07:00PRICE: Well, I had an excellent start, being in the honors program atSwarthmore. I also did work pretty hard and I had a lot of luck. You've got tohave luck in research to have things fall into place. It all did fall into placevery well.

GORTLER: Let's go back a little before I return to that period at Harvard, whichis the period upon which I want to concentrate. Tell me a little bit about yourfather's influence upon you, and about your growing up. I guess you grew up in Passaic?

PRICE: No. My mother and father lived there in an apartment only during thefirst year or two that they were married. They moved to Elizabeth shortly afterthat, and then to Summit, New Jersey.

At that time, my father had great ambitions. He was a hard-driving,entrepreneurial type. He wanted to make a million dollars by the time he was00:08:00thirty years old. He started his own engineering company, T. W. PriceEngineering Co., with offices in the Woolworth Building in downtown New York. Hedesigned and supervised the building of steel plants during World War I and oneof the coaling stations on the Panama Canal. He was quite a successful engineerand was, I guess, making a lot of money.

He worked so hard, however, that he had a breakdown about the time that I wasfour or five years old. The doctors told him to quit his hard-drivingentrepreneurial company. He bought a two hundred acre farm near New Brunswick,New Jersey, in order to regain his health. He farmed. He had forty or fifty00:09:00dairy cattle and distributed milk every morning. It did him a lot of good.

Farming was not his calling, however, and, one Sunday afternoon about a year anda half after he started the dairy business, all of the barns burned. Wesuspected that spontaneous combustion caused the tragedy. That fire essentiallygot him out of the business of farming.

He went back to being an entrepreneur and started the biggest dog kennel in theUnited States, Strongheart Kennels. He sold very well-trained dogs to CalCoolidge and others. That venture was successful.

Eventually, my father got back into the engineering business and into inventing.00:10:00His inventions improved coal-burning furnaces in homes. They were excellentinventions. He got into that business, however, at about the time that peoplebegan to heat their homes with oil. Nonetheless, that's the kind of father Ihad--a very dedicated, hard-working man with an engineering background from Penn.

GORTLER: A hard-working life is natural to you, then.

PRICE: Yes. I guess the Quaker tradition also stresses that way. Both my motherand father were Quakers.

GORTLER: We haven't mentioned that you were at Notre Dame. I always wondered howa Quaker managed that.

00:11:00PRICE: How a peaceful Philadelphia Quaker wound up in the midst of the Fighting Irish?

GORTLER: Right. This grandmother of whom you spoke, was she on your father's side?

PRICE: On my mother's side.

GORTLER: What kind of role did your mother play in the family?

PRICE: She was very much a housewife and a mother. She didn't have many outsideactivities. Although she was interested in many things, she was no intellectual.In her later life she became actively involved in a number of causes, like theWorld Federalists and things of that sort. Before then, however, she had fivechildren to raise on a farm. The first time I really became aware of her rolewas when we were living on the farm. She not only cared for her own kids but,00:12:00from time to time, for quite a few farm workers as well. We had at least onefamily that lived in a little house on the farm and did a lot of extra labor.Ours was a big farm, two hundred acres, and a fairly active one. So she had apretty busy life and, of course, Dad kept her stepping pretty well. He wasalways off doing some extracurricular business activity.

GORTLER: What about your own schooling? You mentioned the George School at one point.

PRICE: Well, before going there, I went to public schools in New Brunswick andBound Brook. We lived about halfway between Bound Brook and New Brunswick and I00:13:00used to take a bus to school. I guess that I was always the type who explored,getting myself into all kinds of things. I also guess that I got on my father'snerves quite a bit, like when I painted the family car one day. I guess that Iwas pretty hard on my father, although not intentionally. I was just always intosomething. I always had my own ideas of what I ought to be doing, and relativelyfew inhibitions about doing them.

When I was in the eighth grade, my parents sent me to visit my grandmother inSwarthmore. I attended the eighth grade at Swarthmore High School. That's when Igot so well acquainted with my grandmother.

00:14:00After I finished the eighth grade at Swarthmore High School, my parents sent meto the George School, which is a Quaker boarding school in Bucks County. Duringmy first year there, I goofed off quite a bit and got into all kinds of troublebecause I was absent-minded. I was always forgetting things that occurred once aweek, like assemblies. Often, when my family came to take me home for vacation,they would find me outside walking off hours of detention. I often rememberedeveryday things, however.

I wasn't one of the hell-raising types, although there were those kinds atschool. I just didn't quite manage to do the things I was supposed to do when I00:15:00was supposed to do them. During the first year I had problems with English andLatin. Eventually, however, I graduated with a pretty good record. I think thatI got nothing but A's in my science and math courses.

GORTLER: Did any particular teachers influence you at that time? Do you rememberany books that did likewise?

PRICE: Well, Norman Swain was my chemistry teacher, and I did enjoy chemistrythere very much. I also liked astronomy. One of our teachers was an amateurastronomer, who used his own telescope to look at the stars. I was alwaysintrigued by astronomy. I'm still writing books, of course, and the last book I00:16:00wrote had a lot to do with the origin of the universe, cosmic theory, and whatnot. So, I've retained an active amateur interest in astronomy. That was kindledat the George School.

I've always been a very active competitor in sports. I have a very vigorouscompetitive instinct that I'm afraid still hasn't been completely subdued. Iplayed baseball and football and wrestled in school. When I went to college, Itransferred from baseball to lacrosse, which, in my opinion, is the world'sgreatest game.

GORTLER: That's an eastern game. We didn't know much about it in the Midwest.

PRICE: It's spreading all over the country now. It was only played here on the00:17:00East Coast when you were young.

GORTLER: I take it that you expected to go to college at a fairly early age.

PRICE: Yes. I didn't doubt that I would go to college. I think that my parentsstrongly doubted that I would go to graduate school. I didn't get anyencouragement from them. Jerry Creighton visited my father in Plainfield andtold him that he ought to let me go to graduate school. My father had a businessat that time and I used to spend my summers working with him. He thought itwould be very nice if I went into the business with him.

GORTLER: Right.

PRICE: I don't think Jerry Creighton had a great deal of difficulty convincinghim, but it was interesting that Jerry Creighton came over to Plainfield tovisit my father in order to persuade him that I ought to go to graduate school.

GORTLER: He obviously had a fair amount of faith in you. Before going toSwarthmore did you consider other institutions?

00:18:00PRICE: Almost none at all. My father had spent a year at Swarthmore when he wasfifteen. He goofed off and flunked a couple of courses. His father thereforetook him out of school and made him work for a couple of years. Later, my fathergraduated from Penn. My mother had spent one year at Swarthmore and then marriedmy father. So they both had attended Swarthmore. A lot of the family had gonethere. I guess that I never considered going anywhere else.

GORTLER: Can you tell me anything else about undergraduate life at Swarthmoreapart from the science?

00:19:00PRICE: Well, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I met my wife when I was a junior and shewas a freshman. I guess it wasn't much more than a month after we met that wedecided that we were to be each other's. One reason why I got through Harvard intwo years was so that I could marry her when she graduated from college. Inthose days you couldn't get married while you were attending college. In fact, Iwould have lost my scholarship at Harvard if I'd married her.

GORTLER: That was a stipulation?

PRICE: It was a stipulation that a person couldn't get married and keep aHarvard fellowship. The authorities probably thought that a married man wouldn'tspend evenings in the lab. My wife's a wonderful gal. She's played a very00:20:00important, inspirational role in my life.

I enjoyed sports. I was lousy at football. Why I played football at GeorgeSchool and in college, I'll never know. I would have loved to play soccerbecause I loved to run. That's what I loved about lacrosse. When I played, I ranall over the field. I was really handicapped as a football player having onlyone hand. I don't know why I was so stupid to keep playing football instead ofsoccer. Nonetheless, I did play football even though I never really enjoyed it.I played lacrosse and I loved it. I didn't play any water sports in college.

GORTLER: When did you begin to play squash?

PRICE: When I went to Harvard. I hadn't intended to play squash, but Stan00:21:00Tarbell asked me to play squash with him. He said, "Come on down, I'll show youhow to play squash."

I liked playing squash so much that I soon bought a racquet. Stan and I weregood friends at Harvard and did a lot of things together. I didn't play anysquash at Swarthmore because there were no courts there then.

Sports were very important at Swarthmore, as was the honors program. If you knewwhat you wanted to do, the last two years at Swarthmore provided a stupendousway to learn.

GORTLER: Of what did they consist?

PRICE: Well, there were two seminars per semester. Either advanced physics and00:22:00organic chemistry or advanced math and physical chemistry. I took an advancedchemistry seminar every semester and either an advanced math or an advancedphysics seminar with it. I met once a week for three hours or so with the prof,and had a lot of independence.

During the first semester of organic seminar, for example, we went throughConant's book from end to end. [1] Additionally, we spentone day in the lab and a lot more time doing independent reading and study.00:23:00During the second semester, each of us wrote a twenty page paper on theGrignard, or the Friedel-Crafts, or you name it. Each week one of us would talkabout what he'd written. The honors students had desks in the back room of thelibrary and we sat there with Beilstein and Chem Abstracts aroundus. [2] We literally dove into the literature. It was justa fantastic way to study. By studying with three other guys who were doing thesame kind of thing, we shared a lot of mutual education. Whatever any one of uslearned would be shared with the others, like in a lab. You always learn morefrom lab partners than you do from professors.

GORTLER: Right.

PRICE: We literally lived together because we were there working almost everynight. It was a tremendous experience.

GORTLER: Do you remember the other fellows who were there?

00:24:00PRICE: Oh, sure. Charlie Stauffer was the guy who drew Harvard and then went to Harvard.

GORTLER: He studied with Tarbell too.

PRICE: Yes, Stan and Charlie were lab mates . . . no, they weren't.

GORTLER: Was he the fellow who started with Bartlett and then switched tosomeone else?

PRICE: Switched to Kistiakowsky.

GORTLER: That's right.

PRICE: He started with Bartlett and then went over to Kistiakowsky. He has sincedone a lot of compiling and editing for the International Critical Tables. He'sdone academic work ever since he left Harvard. He was at Worcester for a longtime. He's now at one of the colleges up in Maine, or he may have just retired.

Johnny Brod drew Yale and worked very successfully for Procter and Gamble. Ithink he's vice president or research director or something like that.

00:25:00Dave Brearly, the fourth student, was not nearly as good a student as the otherthree of us. I don't think that he completed his honors requirements. He didgraduate. He went to Harvard and got a masters's degree and then worked for DuPont and a few other companies. I have lost track of him.

GORTLER: Do you remember anyone else who did or did not become a chemist and wasclose to you at that time.

PRICE: There were no special relationships. I still have a lot of good friends00:26:00with whom I had played lacrosse. I see some of them quite frequently. I was afraternity member but I don't see too much of my old fraternity mates. I neverwas enthusiastic about fraternity life.

GORTLER: You were pretty much submerged in your science studies during the lastcouple of years. Who was the organic professor?

00:27:00PRICE: Edward H. Cox. He assisted in the invention of hexylresorcinol. He didthat in industry where he had spent a few years. He went to Swarthmore and spentthe rest of his life there as a professor. He was a very interesting, cockylittle guy, a little martinet only about five feet, five inches tall. He becamethe science attache for the United States in Paris. He always had a closeaffiliation with French organic chemists. He loved them and spoke Frenchfluently. He was a good professor although not of the same caliber as Creighton.Creighton was a really great man, very, very, bright. He was the kind of man forwhom one had a great deal of respect. We worked hard for Ed Cox because hedemanded it.

GORTLER: He's the fellow who was demanding all these papers, I take it?

00:28:00PRICE: Yes. That's right. He exerted a good influence on me, no question about it.

GORTLER: Were you particularly influenced there by any other professors or books?

PRICE: Yes. I think there was another very important influence at Swarthmore. Ithink the excellent math and physics I got made it very easy for me--even thoughI'm an organic chemist--to do things mathematically and not to be afraid to lookat physics and physical principles. This influenced me to become a physicalorganic chemist rather than an organic chemist. I could easily have become aphysical chemist. If I had gone to Princeton I'm sure I would have become aphysical chemist. Incidentally, I finally did get an offer from Princeton. It00:29:00arrived in August, however, a little too late. If it hadn't been for LouisFieser I would have gone to Princeton. I'm almost certain I would have been aphysical chemist had I gone there, because they had some very good physicalchemists. That was my inclination and it was only Louis Fieser who dragged meaway from it and got me to be an organic chemist.

GORTLER: These are little known tales that will be known only through oralhistory interviews.

PRICE: One other thing was very important for me at Swarthmore--the courses Itook in the history and philosophy of science. Those courses were fascinating.We read books about the origin of the universe, about evolution, about all kindsof things. The courses impressed me and broadened my outlook about science. Alot of scientists take a fairly narrow view of what they do. A fellow named00:30:00Holmes, we called him "Ducky" Holmes, taught the history of science. He was afascinating teacher and he ran for Congress. Brand Blanchard taught thephilosophy course and he was a fascinating teacher too.

00:31:00[END OF AUDIO FILE 1.1]

GORTLER: That outlook has stayed with you because you have had a very broad viewof science.

PRICE: I know that was a very important influence on me. The advanced physicsand chemistry that I took were extremely useful to me even though I don'tremember the people who taught them. The math teacher, Arnold Dresden, was afascinating character. I wasn't a particularly talented mathematician, althoughI was able to get an A in all of the courses except one in which I got a B. I00:32:00took the exam when I had a temperature of 105 degrees and still wound up gettinga B in that course. I wasn't theoretically enough inclined to be a good mathematician.

GORTLER: You had enough facility to use it.

PRICE: Yes. I got exposed to enough of it and pushed hard enough in it so that Iwasn't afraid to use it. I understood the principles.

GORTLER: That comes out in your papers. You always had sufficient facility toattack a problem. I also got the impression from reading your papers that youweren't afraid to attack a problem.

PRICE: That's certainly what I got out of my mathematical training, even thoughI didn't pick up enough facility to be a real mathematician. I felt familiar00:33:00enough with math so as not to be scared to death, but rather to jump in and tryit. You do get a feel for the principles, even though you don't have all of theworking activity at your fingertips. That makes a big difference.

GORTLER: Do you recollect your perceptions about being a chemist as you werefinishing at Swarthmore? That is, now that you had chosen to be a chemist, whatdid you think being a chemist meant?

PRICE: That's an interesting question because I suppose that I was about asnaive and unthinking about my future as you could imagine.

GORTLER: Probably no more than any other graduate.

PRICE: Well, when I look back at my own kids, they did a lot more thinking aboutwhat they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it. I really hadn't faced up to00:34:00what I was going to do when I got out of college. Jerry Creighton told me that Iought to go to graduate school. So, I went to graduate school.

Getting my Ph.D. at Harvard in twenty-one months didn't give me a lot of time tothink about what I was going to do when I completed my studies. I never took aninterview for a job, even though I was sure that I was going to finish. I justdidn't bother.

I did apply for a National Research Council Fellowship. Either Fieser or Kohlersuggested that I ought to do that. I applied in order to do some more research.One day Kohler called me and said that he had received a letter from RogerAdams. Roger was on the committee that chose the National Research Council00:35:00Fellowships. Apparently Roger liked what they were saying about me. He hadwritten to Kohler asking whether I would be interested in working with him. Iwas so naive that I didn't even know who Roger Adams was at that point! Kohlertold me about him.

GORTLER: He apparently was a good friend of Kohler's.

PRICE: Yes, they knew each other. Kohler esentially said, "You go out and workwith Adams." So I went out and worked with Adams. That was a great move. I was delighted.

GORTLER: Yes. It obviously was. I want to get back to that, because thecomparison of Harvard and of Illinois is very important to me.

I don't think you need feel embarrassed about not knowing what you were gettinginto. I have not spoken to anybody who went into chemistry with any preconceivednotion of what it was like. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me that heknew what he was doing.

PRICE: That he'd figured it out, had it all planned?

00:36:00GORTLER: Yes, that's right. Did you ever consider being anything but an academic chemist?

00:37:00PRICE: As I say, I really didn't think about it. I didn't consciously say,"Well, if I do this and then do that, I'll become a professor." I just likedwhat I was doing so much that I guess I wanted to keep doing it. I always havethoroughly enjoyed chemistry. It was a little wrenching a few years ago to giveit up, for a variety of reasons. But I definitely have given up the activepursuit of chemistry in favor of some other things. My motivation was to keep on00:38:00having fun. It was exciting fun to solve problems.

I think I could easily have gone into industrial work, because I've been verysuccessful as a consultant. I've had quite a few offers to go into industrialwork, but liked the academic life so much that I never seriously consideredbecoming an industrial chemist.

I like to feel that the things that I do have some practical importance--incontrast to many of my colleagues in the academic world who think that if whatthey're doing has some useful application there's something wrong with it. I'venever felt that way. I've always felt, gee, it's a bonus if what I'm doing hasalso got some useful application.

GORTLER: What about the courses that you took at Harvard? You must have decidedto do research very quickly.

PRICE: I started to do research almost a week or two after I got there because Ididn't have to take the first-year graduate courses, having done honors work at Swarthmore.

GORTLER: I see. So you didn't take Kohler's course?

PRICE: I took Kohler's course.

GORTLER: You did?

PRICE: That's a course I wouldn't have missed. That was a gem of a course.

GORTLER: I'm very interested in Kohler.

00:39:00PRICE: He was a great teacher, a great teacher. I thoroughly enjoyed his course.I took Kisty's course on thermodynamics. I took a course by Fieser, the coursehe was giving in natural products, from which he wrote his book, Chemistry ofNatural Products Related to Phenanthrene. [3] I don'tthink I took Paul Bartlett's course. Those are the only three courses I canremember for sure. There might have been a fourth. I think a chemical engineercame from MIT and offered a course that I audited. I don't think I took it for credit.

GORTLER: There was a course offered in sewage disposal or something like thatfor a number of years.

PRICE: No. This dealt with chemical processes or something like that. He talked00:40:00about how you did chemical processing although I can't remember for sure. I'msure that I took a course from Louis Fieser and I know I took Kohler's courseand Kisty's course.

GORTLER: Do you remember the orientation of Kohler's course at that time?

PRICE: He talked a lot about how to do chemical reactions. He picked examplesfrom the literature and gave us the details of different kinds of reactions such00:41:00as, addition to alpha, beta-unsaturated ketones. That was, of course, one of hisresearch interests. He did a lot of work on the Michael reaction. He gave us alot of the details--which reactions worked and how, and what changes in thestructure caused it to go 1,2 rather than 1,4. He discussed how structureaffects the reactivity of organic compounds. He approached mechanismsclassically and we had a lot of discussion.

GORTLER: He was raising problems for you.

PRICE: Oh yes. I can still remember his course and Fieser's course. There wasn'ta lecture to which I went that I didn't write down in my notes a couple of00:42:00research problems that I thought would be interesting to undertake. Both Kohlerand Fieser stimulated their students. They raised questions. They said: "Here'swhat we know; here are a lot of things that we don't know." Meanwhile, I keptwriting all kinds of ideas in my notes. So, they certainly did give lecturesthat stimulated me because I can distinctly remember that I would think about aninteresting new research problem about which they had talked.

GORTLER: Your first problem seemed to be very physically oriented for Fieser.You obviously waited for the right problem to come along. What was his feeling00:43:00about the way the problem then proceeded? Obviously, you were doing a veryphysical analysis of the problem as well.

PRICE: You have to give Fieser credit. You know, I wound up measuring rates ofreaction and equilibria. The bromine addition was an equilibrium reaction and wecould measure the equilibrium constants. Fieser had done his Ph.D. thesis onequilibrium constants. The oxidation-reduction potentials of quinones is athermodynamic study. A lot of work is still being done on that. That was an areaabout which Fieser knew a lot.

Fieser had a better grasp of physical chemistry than most people realize,because he liked the synthetic. He did an awful lot of good synthetic chemistry,00:44:00but he also did a hell of a lot of work on synthesizing quinones, all kinds ofquinones with all kinds of substituents, and measuring the effect ofsubstituents on the oxidation-reduction potentials of quinones. I don't want togive the impression that Louis was not interested in and not able to do physicalchemistry. At the same time, it was very helpful to have Paul Bartlett in thelab right next door.

When Louis presented the problem to me, the older German literature suggestedthat the substitution of benzene went through an addition reaction. Here was acase where one could isolate the addition intermediate and convert it to thesubstitution product. Louis wanted to see if we could prove that that was in00:45:00fact the way it went. We proved that that was not the way it went, although wedidn't establish at that time whether it was a free radical or an ion. Nothing Idid could establish whether the thing with one bromine added to it was an ion ora radical. I left that very noncommittal in my thesis and in the paper that I published.

GORTLER: Yes. There was a hint of a radical mechanism at that time.

PRICE: I'm sure that we knew that light catalyzed the reaction but there's noquestion in my mind now that the addition reaction was photocatalytic and couldgo by a radical. We just didn't have enough evidence to be sure that it wentthrough the electrophilic attack which, of course, is the way it does go. That00:46:00was just a little before the best evidence for that came along from Ingold.

GORTLER: Yes. You spent quite a bit of time afterwards working on electrophilicsubstitutions. That was not the last of it.

You were talking to Fieser, Bartlett and Tarbell. To whom else were you talking,as if you had time to talk to anybody.

PRICE: I thoroughly enjoyed Kisty's course in thermo, even though most of theorganic chemists hated it. I think that it was a very, very, useful course. I00:47:00did well in it. I learned a lot from him.

GORTLER: Do you remember books from that time, or people or papers that you werereading that you felt were particularly important?

PRICE: You know, one of the reasons, not by any means the most important one,that I decided to retire early was that I was losing my memory. I was having aterrible time remembering details and people and names. [laughter] But that's agood question.

I certainly thought Conant's book on organic chemistry was a gem, for thattime. [4] He had a different approach to organic chemistryand his textbook was very good. What else? Darn, I must have read a lot of them.

00:48:00GORTLER: Did you know anything about the German literature? Huckel for example?Or was that not required at that time?

PRICE: Yes, I'm sure we got exposed a little bit to Huckel.

GORTLER: The organic chemist, Walter, not the physical chemist, Erich.

PRICE: Well, I just don't know. I finished my courses in '35. My last year wasentirely research. When was Huckel's work?

GORTLER: Well, he had a book out about 1930 or '31. That was Theoretical OrganicChemistry. [5] I think it was a two-volume set. It coveredthe foundations of organic chemistry. I'm trying to figure out whether that book00:49:00had much of an impact in the United States. People seemed to know about it, butI'm not sure many read it.

PRICE: Well, I guess you're well aware of the fact that I was never one of theardent, overzealous supporters of the resonance theory.

GORTLER: That's understated.

PRICE: I fought those guys very vigorously. Saul Winstein had a public burningof my book on carbon-carbon double bonds, because I didn't genuflect enough tothe resonance theory.

GORTLER: In that 1941 Reviews article, you spent a lot of time trying to domainly inductive effects. [6] I mean, you weren't calling00:50:00them inductive effects.

PRICE: I called them, "Direct electrostatic effects," and they were damnedimportant. The resonance theory tried to give all kinds of hocus-pocusexplanations for simple electrostatics. It's ridiculous. I'm perfectly willingto admit that there are resonance effects. An allyl radical is stabilized byresonance. A cation, however, is stabilized a hell of a lot more byelectrostatic effects than it is by resonance effects.

You know, because I was willing to say that there were electrostatic effects andthat everything wasn't due to resonance, the resonance zealots, and I think theywere zealots, castigated me. I've often wondered if that's the reason why Inever got into the National Academy. I don't know. You just never know aboutsome things. A lot of those zealots were very, very vigorously opposed to my00:51:00ideas about the importance of simple, little old plus and minus electricaleffects. Although perceived as an aspect of fundamental physics, electrostaticsis an extremely important part of chemistry.

GORTLER: The last paper that you suggested that I read, since I gave you acutoff date, was the '51 paper, which contains a reevaluation of theelectrostatic effects. [7] There too, you were making astrong argument for these effects.

PRICE: Louis Hammett reviewed that paper and castigated it. He said that this isthe kind of stuff that a poor senior might do, or something like that. It was ablistering statement. I'm not sure that it was Hammett, but I suspect that it was.

GORTLER: It's funny, because I've been talking to Hammett quite a bit recently.He lives just twenty miles from here, and he seems like such a nice, gentle man.I have heard rumors here and there, however, that he could be very harsh.

00:52:00PRICE: I have a great admiration for him, but I'm not sure that it'sreciprocated at all.

GORTLER: Do you remember any other graduate students?

PRICE: Sure I remember Stan Tarbell very well. He's always been a good friend.He visits me occasionally when he comes to Philadelphia.

GORTLER: He was here recently and I interviewed him.

PRICE: He comes here frequently because he's interested in the history of chemistry.

GORTLER: That's right. He has a sister who lives nearby.

PRICE: Charlie Bradsher was a lab mate. I see a fair amount of Charlie. He's aprofessor at Duke. Elmore Martin, who worked all his life at Du Pont was another00:53:00lab partner. A third very interesting guy in our lab was Arnold Seligman, theguy who synthesized methylcholanthrene. He later became an M.D. He died recentlyof cancer, after having spent most of his career working on cancer research. Iremember Warren Lothrop who worked in Boston for Arthur D. Little. There werefive of us in the lab together. Those are the four lab mates with whom I gotparticularly well acquainted.

Max Tishler was up there. I got acquainted with him in those days. He worked for00:54:00Kohler. I still see a lot of Mel Newman. He was a post-doc with Louis Fieser; heworked there in the basement lab. Mel was the post-doc with whom I got bestacquainted. A few weeks ago he gave a lecture at Bryn Mawr and played golf withme. Hirschfelder was also there, and he too worked in the basement. Hirschfelderhelped me with some of my synthetic problems. He went on and worked with one ofthe drug companies.

I did talk a modest amount with some of the analytical chemists. I've always hadclose contact with them because whenever you measure the rate of a reaction,your number one problem is an analytical one.

GORTLER: Right.

00:55:00PRICE: I got acquainted with G. P. Baxter, an organic and analytical chemist. Italked quite a bit to G.S. Forbes who had done photochemistry. Since we weremeasuring reactions that were exposed to light in a photometer, I had to getinterested in photochemistry.

GORTLER: Yes, I remember there was a comment in one of the papers about how youlet the light run all of the time in certain reactions but switched it off in others.

PRICE: I remember Forbes. He was an interesting character. That's about all thatI can remember of people up there.

00:56:00GORTLER: Do you have any general impressions about Harvard? Compare it, if youcan, to Illinois.

PRICE: They both had one thing in common, a work ethic. You worked hard and youenjoyed it.

The social climates were totally different, however. I can illustrate that witha little anecdote. After I arrived at Illinois I played squash with a geologist.00:57:00We played several games and then began to talk about where we'd gone to graduateschool. He remarked, "Well, you've gone to Harvard graduate school, that'sinteresting. When were you there?"

I responded, "From '34 to '36."

"We were both there at the same time," he said.

I asked, "Where did you live?"

He answered, "Conant Hall."

"On what floor?" I asked.

"Fourth floor," he said.

We had lived for two years on the same floor of Conant Hall and hadn't met eachother until a few years later on a squash court of the University of Illinois.

That's typically the atmosphere of Harvard. I mean, it's very aloof andunfriendly. When you go out to the Midwest, you get to know everybody. The00:58:00milkman, everybody, says hello to you. You just have a totally different kind of atmosphere.

When Fieser came around to talk to me at Harvard, it was always about business.He'd ask, "What's new?" At Illinois, however, when I worked as a post-doc forRoger Adams, he'd come around and spend an hour talking about his latest trip toChina. It was a very much more relaxed and friendly atmosphere at Illinois.

Science-wise, Harvard was super. I mean, I don't know, there must have beenother good places to attend, but I just can't imagine that there are any placeswhere I would have learned more than I did at Harvard. Very few places wouldhave let me earn my Ph.D. degree in twenty-one months. Most universities havestrict rules about students matriculating for at least three years. Harvard didn't.

00:59:00I was always extremely pleased with my experiences at Harvard, and not just inscience. I did a few other things up there. I played lacrosse for two years withthe Boston Lacrosse Club and I coached Harvard's JV lacrosse team. Additionally,although I had no interest in classical music before I attended Harvard, Ibecame interested in it while there. It happened in the following manner.

The Boston Symphony used to perform at old Mem Hall about once a month. StanTarbell used to sit in the little peanut gallery up over the stage. It cost himonly a dollar to do so. One night I didn't want to work and Stan was going overthere. He asked me to go along with him and mentioned that it would only cost meone dollar. I said that I wouldn't mind spending a dollar. I don't think that I01:00:00missed another concert after that. Ever since then I've been very muchinterested in symphonic music. I'm no performer, but I sure enjoy listening.

GORTLER: When you left Harvard, what kind of chemist did you consider yourselfto be?

PRICE: An organic chemist with a strong interest in physical organic mechanisms.Physical organic chemistry was hardly born at that time.

GORTLER: Yes, that's right.

PRICE: I was interested in the mechanisms of reactions, but I did not get muchmoral support at Illinois for that sort of endeavor.

GORTLER: That was my next question.

01:01:00PRICE: I had to fight for that at Illinois where all of the profs were classicalorganic chemists. They were not at all sure that this new way of looking atmechanisms was all that great. I got along fine with them, but I definitely hadto earn my way out there on that.

GORTLER: Yes. How were you supported at Illinois?

PRICE: Roger Adams had his own money for post-docs. I suppose that he receivedit from the university.

GORTLER: Yes, he did manage to pick up money. Every time he'd get an offer fromanother university, he'd pick up another post-doc.

PRICE: I've used the same gimmick.

GORTLER: OK. You were listed as a research assistant, but you were a post-doc.

PRICE: I was a research assistant to Roger Adams. I guess I was paid by theUniversity of Illinois.

GORTLER: Do you have any idea how much you were paid at that time?

PRICE: Eighteen hundred dollars.

01:02:00[END OF AUDIO FILE 1.2]

GORTLER: Go on, tell me more about your stay at Illinois.

PRICE: After I completed my post-doc with Roger Adams I was appointed to theteaching staff as an instructor for a year or two. I then taught the elementaryorganic course for pre-meds and home ec students. I also got started with a few01:04:00senior research students and taught qual organic. I'm not sure that I taught itduring the first year. My main responsibility was to teach the elementaryorganic course for pre-med and home ec students.

GORTLER: Was there a qual organic book by Fuson at that time?

PRICE: Fuson and Shriner?

GORTLER: Shriner was already there?

PRICE: They were both there. Fuson and Connor had written the book that we wereusing for our one semester organic course. Harold Snyder and I later becamecoauthors of that book. [8]

There were lots of seniors in chemistry at Illinois and the faculty at Illinoisencouraged them to work with young faculty. Harold Snyder started the same year01:05:00that I did. We went there as post-docs and became faculty members the next year.The senior faculty helped to push seniors, and then later Ph.D. students, our way.

GORTLER: That's very helpful.

PRICE: A wonderful group of men; they were just great. Roger and Speed were verydifferent. Roger is an eastern aristocrat; Speed, a farm boy from central Illinois.

GORTLER: I understand that he always tried to con people into thinking that hewas a backward farm boy. [laughter]

PRICE: That was the image he liked to project. He'd then beat the hell out ofyou at poker.

01:06:00GORTLER: Great. [laughter] For some reason American Men of Science says that youwere an instructor, then an associate, and then an assistant professor. What wasthe distinction?

PRICE: "Associate" was an academic rank at Illinois that I don't think any otherplace had. It was just one extra step up the ladder.

GORTLER: OK. How much were you making as an instructor? Did your salary change?

PRICE: It might have increased by a few hundred dollars, maybe to twenty-fourhundred dollars. I don't know precisely. My salary was either two thousanddollars or twenty-four hundred dollars.

GORTLER: That helps me to understand how much people were making in those days.How did you decide on your first problems? These aren't papers that yourecommended to me, but I know from the titles that you were doing alkylation ofnaphthalene, some periodate oxidation, and some cis-trans isomerizations. Is01:07:00there any particular reason why you opted to do any of those?

PRICE: Well, the Friedel-Crafts reaction was developed some in my thesis, ofcourse. I had to make tertiary butyl naphthalene. I got very much intrigued bysome problems that hadn't been solved, about alkylation of naphthalene by theFriedel-Crafts method. Some people had reported pure compounds that wereeutectic mixtures and things like that.

So we had to straighten out a few of these things. They weren't earthshakingproblems, but they were good things to get started on. They provided goodexperience for senior students. I had to pick something fairly straightforwardfor the seniors to do.

I really don't remember how I got interested in the periodate problem. Maybe Iread about it in the literature--a very specific cleavage of glycols--andthought that it would be interesting to do the kinetics of it. It's an easy01:08:00reaction to measure; it's fast and the periodate to iodate conversion seemedeasy to follow by titration. I had a senior do that work.

I remember how I got started in polymers.

GORTLER: Yes, that was one of the things I wanted to ask you. How did you?

PRICE: Well, Speed Marvel had made optically active secondary butylalpha-chloracrylate with d-secondary butyl alcohol to see if he could makeoptically active polymer. He came around one day and said, "Charlie, if you wantto study kinetics of reaction, why don't you study one that's useful, likepolymerization?" He said, "I've got this optically active monomer and we foundout that the polymer has a very different optical rotation than the monomer. Itought to be pretty easy for you to study it." I jumped at the chance. He gave me01:09:00some of the stuff to work with. In fact, he even gave me the student, Bob Kell.

I think that Kell wanted to work for Speed. Speed had a big group, and he pushedBob my way and suggested this problem. It turned out to be a very goodsuggestion. I don't think Speed could have known this, but many peroxidecatalyzed polymerizations have fairly complex kinetics. You can either have thefirst order decomposition, the peroxide initiation, or you can have a catalyzeddecomposition of the peroxide. That gives you rather complex kinetics.

GORTLER: Right.

01:10:00PRICE: This was perfectly simple kinetics. Half order peroxide, first ordermonomer, just fit absolutely beautifully with the first order initiation, thesecond order radical monomer reaction, and the second order radical-radicaltermination. We were able to show that that particular one fit those kineticsbeautifully, and that that was the mechanism. That led us immediately to seethat peroxide was not a catalyst, but rather a chain initiator. That led usright into proving that end groups were present in the polymer. I think we werethe first to show that the catalyst fragments were at the chain ends of the polymer.

It was a simple logical conclusion from the mechanism. Actually, about a yearpreviously, Flory had proposed that mechanism from the literature data. We gotmuch cleaner kinetics than the typical kinetics in the literature.

01:11:00GORTLER: Had you started consulting at that particular time?

PRICE: No.

GORTLER: That was just a totally academic problem at that time.

PRICE: I imagine Speed had gotten interested in polymers from his consulting. Ididn't start consulting for Hercules until '41.

GORTLER: I want to spend some time on the problems, but I also want to spendsome time just getting a general feeling about physical organic chemistry. Yousaid just a few minutes ago that it really hadn't crystallized in the latethirties. When do you think it did crystallize? When did you consider yourselfto be part of a community of physical organic chemists? You were continually01:12:00fighting that battle at Illinois, I suspect.

PRICE: Well, the late thirties were certainly the formative years. Physicalorganic chemistry crystallized, I guess, after World War II, when people likeBartlett, Winstein and Bill Young seemed to have put enough together.

Nothing could really happen during the war because we were concentrating on thewar effort. Wasn't it right after the war that we had the first conference onorganic mechanisms?

GORTLER: That's right. It occurred in 1946. That's when you left Illinois.Setting up that conference must have been your first act as chairman at Notre Dame.

01:13:00PRICE: I had proposed before that, that we ought to have some kind of anorganized effort in physical organic chemistry. I had suggested undertaking somekind of publishing effort, like Organic Syntheses or Organic Reactions. Ithought that we ought to have a monograph published on physical organicchemistry, but I couldn't get much backing for that endeavor.

Paul and I decided, however, that we could organize the mechanisms conference.

GORTLER: Paul said that he just went along for the ride. It was your idea.

PRICE: I think that it probably was my idea. I also pushed this other idea--thatwe ought to have a little thing that came out summarizing physical organic.There was no other way that people could put their thoughts together.

GORTLER: It took another twenty years, or until the early 1960s that Advances inPhysical Organic Chemistry and Progress in Physical Organic Chemistry appeared.

01:14:00[Untranscribed material about collaborating with Paul Bartlett, 1:13:50 – 1:14:22]

Getting back to the conference . . . how did you decide upon who was going totalk and whom to invite? It's become a very elitist conference now. I don't knowif it was in those days or not.

PRICE: Well, that's an interesting question. I didn't save any of that stuffwhen I left Notre Dame. I had a whole file on that conference. I don't have it now.

GORTLER: I've contacted some people out at Notre Dame. Tony Trozzolo has a lotof interesting information about the conferences of the last fifteen or twenty01:15:00years. He's given me the names of people to contact.

PRICE: I suppose that Paul and I decided whom to invite. We invited all of theleading people. I'm sure Saul Winstein was there. Jack Roberts was there. Idon't know whether the guy at Harvard . . .

GORTLER: Woodward?

PRICE: I don't know whether he was there or not. Dick Taft was there.

GORTLER: Taft may have been too young.

PRICE: He might not have been there.

GORTLER: That's right, I think that he was a post-doc for Hammett about four orfive years later.

PRICE: He might not have been there.

GORTLER: Hammett was there. What about Hammett's book? [9]What kind of impact do you think that had?

01:16:00PRICE: Oh, tremendous. I should have mentioned that. It was published after Icompleted my graduate studies.

GORTLER: That's right. It wasn't published until 1940.

PRICE: I think that was an extremely influential book.

GORTLER: You think that sort of crystallized it?

PRICE: Yes. That would certainly have helped a great deal to crystallize it. Itwas extremely influential. It was the basis of my paper in Chem. Reviews, inwhich I tried to calculate some of these effects. [6] Itwas very much a part of the Q/e scheme. Hammett was always very funny about myfamiliarity with Hammett's sigma-rho, how it developed and its theoretical01:17:00basis. He was such a purist of a physical chemist that he didn't like to admitthat his equation had any theoretical basis. He liked to call his equation empirical.

GORTLER: Yes.

PRICE: There's a good theoretical basis for the electrical interaction. Eyringused those electrical interactions as an additive factor in the activationenergy. I don't know why Hammett was so skittish about it. He was very criticalof me for thinking that there was a theoretical basis. I just didn't quiteunderstand that view because there was a good theoretical basis for it.

The fact that you could add an electrical factor to the activation energy led usto add a resonance factor to the activation energy. That became the Q factor inthe copolymerization equation. It became a way of measuring the resonance effectin reactions. It gave a quantitative number that measured the amount of01:18:00resonance stabilization factors of substituents attached to carbon-carbon double bonds.

A substantial number of the purists didn't like to interpret things, however. Ialways thought that that's what good science is about. If you just have the coldnumbers, you haven't really got the feel of what it is to do science.

GORTLER: Yes. I think that's important; the contrasting approaches help me agood deal.

PRICE: Incidentally, since we're talking about the Q/e scheme, I'd like tomention that Walling was always a detractor of it. He told me that he was adetractor because he had thought of it first, and because there was no absoluteway to determine Q and e. That's right. There is none. You have to assign avalue for Q and e for a reference monomer. You just have to be reasonable about01:19:00it. Hammett's sigma gave me a very good way of picking where I wanted the e tobe. If e is going to be quantitatively related to sigma and they are linearlyrelated, that gives you a way of picking your scale for e. That then fixes the Qvalues. Walling was always very negative about that approach, probably becausehe said he thought of it first and thought it wasn't any good. [laughter] Idon't know. That's what he or somebody else told me. Cheves and I are good friends.

GORTLER: I'm going to talk to him this fall. I'll see if I can get his side.

At some time during the period from 1938 to 1942, or perhaps from 1938 to 1946,01:20:00a shift occurred in organic chemistry. It wasn't a revolution, I don't think,but rather, a shift. Physical organic chemistry began to emerge.

PRICE: Yes, it became recognized at some time in that decade.

GORTLER: Can you give me a general impression of what was happening? Were theclassical organic chemists fighting the emergence of physical organic chemistrytooth and nail? Or did they recognize that some kind of change was about tooccur and that it was inevitable? Can you think of anything that Speed Marvel orRoger Adams said or did?

PRICE: Well, I suppose that the wartime research itself affected this issue01:21:00because everybody had to pitch in. Bartlett did a lot of work on nitrogenmustards and we did a lot of work on nitrogen mustards and sulfur mustards. SaulWinstein was shocked at the end of the war to find out how much we had developedduring the war of anchimeric assistance that he didn't know about. It was justthe funniest damn thing to see how he reacted at the mechanisms conference heldat Notre Dame. You know, he just couldn't believe that we really had come upwith all of these ideas during the war. That's an interesting story, how Pauland I developed the three-membered ring.

GORTLER: Yes. I'd like to hear about that. In fact, there's one little paper,"The Analysis of the Mustard Using Thiosulphate," that seems almostinsignificant and that you recommended I read. [10] It's aclever little paper, but the important thing about it apparently is the threemembered ring. Did you recommmend it to me because that was the first time01:22:00somebody had put that in print?

PRICE: Before that everybody wrote of it as a carbonium ion, which is justnonsense. There are still crazy characters, not chemists, but biologists, whowrite about nitrogen mustard going through carbonium ions. It's just ridiculous.It's also amazing how something that is wrong gets started and how hard it is toget it corrected.

I had intended to say that Paul Bartlett had to work on practical problems. Itoo had to work on practical problems, for example, I worked on the mechanism ofemulsion polymerization during the war.

GORTLER: That was a war project too?

PRICE: No. I just did that with one guy as a piece of side research. I thinkthat Speed may have gotten me a little research money so that I could work onthe emulsion polymerization of styrene. We had to work on the behavior ofchemical warfare agents in water, and so it was very useful to know what the01:23:00mechanisms of these reactions were. It helped us to know the mechanism of thereaction forming styrene-butadiene rubber, including the mechanism of themercaptan modifier in order to control the molecular weight. It fit hand inglove with what I'd been doing and with what I'd been saying about chaintransfer mechanisms. So, mechanisms earned their keep in a lot of practicalproblems on which people were forced to work.

If it weren't for the war, some people might not have worked on practicalproblems. I might have, but Paul Bartlett wouldn't have. He might have focusedupon esoteric, academic matters instead of working on practical things thateverybody knew were important. I think that the more conventional chemistsrealized that this stuff wasn't purely esoteric, that it could perform a useful01:24:00function. I think that it helped to educate a lot of chemists like Roger Adams,who was head of the National Defense Research Committee's Chemistry Section, andSpeed, who was directing the research on synthetic rubber. They began to seethat these things weren't totally useless.

A lot of people did, and still do, a lot of totally useless stuff, what I callcrossword puzzle chemistry. Solving the New York Times crossword puzzle is aninteresting challenge, but when you've solved it, you haven't pushed the stateof humanity very far forward. Too much, I think, still happens that way. It'sbest to pick something that not only would solve the problem, but also would be useful.

Although, in peace time, we were a bunch of the damnedest independent, contrary01:25:00characters you could imagine; during the war we all had to do useful stuff andwork together. So, guys like Adams and Marvel had to listen to guys likeBartlett and myself and Bill Young, who were working on problems that they knewhad to be solved. I think that the war played a very important role,accelerating the recognition of the value of applying physical organic chemistryto practical problems. I never really thought about it in this way until now.

GORTLER: I think that it makes a lot of sense. It must also have had an enormousimpact on industrial outfits, because they suddenly started to look for physicalorganic chemists after the war.

PRICE: I think that wartime cooperation greatly helped to speed up the01:26:00legitimization of the physical organic approach to problems.

GORTLER: Yes. Well, let's talk a little bit more about some of the problems onwhich you worked. Consider, for example, your article in Chemical Reviews thatdealt with aromatic substitution. [6] What possessed youto write it at that particular time? Did you think that it would be a good thingfor you to do or did someone ask you to write it.

01:27:00PRICE: No, no one asked me to write it. It was just something that I thought wasinteresting, to try to assess the effects on electrophilic substitution from electrostatics.

GORTLER: OK. You tended to ignore resonance work; you ignored the English schoolalmost entirely. You made no reference to Ingold or Robertson. Was that intentional?

PRICE: No. I don't think so. I was probably just ignorant of their work at thetime. I wasn't as aware of their research as I should have been.

GORTLER: I see.

PRICE: I've never been as much of a scholar as I should have been. You know, I01:28:00don't like to read a lot of other people's research. I like to do what I like todo. I do only the reading that seems to be absolutely essential. I guess thishas gotten me into trouble at times. I simply knew very little of what thosepeople were doing, just as they knew very little of what I was doing. When Iwent to talk to Ingold and Heilbron, I was flabbergasted to learn how littlethey knew about free radical reactions. Well, when you get immersed in your ownthing, you just don't do as much reading in other areas.

I did have this idea, however, about the importance of simple electricalinteractions, and I thought that an article in Chem Reviews was a good vehiclewith which to express my views. I guess I was a little brash, giving less01:29:00emphasis to resonance than I now would do. I think I have a more balanced viewnow. It just struck me, when I did those calculations, that I could show thatthe electrical interaction accounted for almost everything. I'm still convincedthat it is by far the most important quantitative contributor in ionicreactions. If a dipole interacts with a charge, electrical interaction willstill be more important than resonance interaction.

I don't deny that there are resonance effects. Certainly, free radical reactionsand the stabilization of carbon free radicals are not entirely electrostaticphenomena. I realize that resonance is a small factor in ionic reactions. In01:30:00free radical reactions, however, it's a fairly significant one, although not theonly one. The e values do affect the copolymerization very significantly. Ithink, therefore, that I wrote that article in Chem Reviews primarily to expressthese views.

GORTLER: OK. Let's talk now about your work during the war.

PRICE: I supervised two major programs during the war. One involved antimalarialdrugs; the other concerned the treatment of water contaminated with chemical01:31:00warfare agents. I also collaborated with Speed a little bit on the rubber01:32:00program and did some work with a few others. I collaborated with Bob Fuson onsome of his work on chemical warfare agents.

01:33:00[END OF AUDIO FILE 1.3]

[. . .]

[I'll talk a bit more now about my research with chemical warfare agents. I was01:36:00requested] to ascertain the chemistry of the behavior of sulphur mustard inwater, in order to find out how to analyze for it, so as to devise satisfactorymethods of decontaminating the water. In order to find out how to analyse forit, however, I needed to know exactly what the mechanism of the hydrolysis was.

So, I read a lot. There was a modest amount of relevant material in theliterature because, of course, sulphur mustard had been used in World War I.Although it was clear that the reaction was simple first-order reaction, theproducts of the reaction were determined by the nature of nucleophiles in the solution.

When you hydrolyzed mustard in pure water you got a half-life of eight minutes.If you put thiosulphate in, you changed the product completely to the01:37:00thiosulphate replacement product with exactly the same half-life. People hadwritten about it in the literature as though it went through a carbonium ion andcalled it an S 1 reaction. That just didn't wash with me.

I could not believe that a carbonium ion could be that selective about what itreacted with. There was no evidence that the t-butyl carbonium ion was anywherenear that selective. It just seemed totally wrong to think that it was acarbonium ion. The answer finally dawned on me after thinking about it for a fewweeks and worrying about what the proper mechanism was. One day it dawned on meat about five in the morning. I woke up early and there was the answer sittingright in front of me.

I want to acknowledge the subliminal effect upon me of my knowledge of the work01:38:00of Young and Winstein. They had just explained the stereochemistry of somebromohydrin reactions by bromonium ion intermediates. Certainly, if bromine canparticipate in such a thing, sulphur ought to be a lot better. Yet, it stilltook me a couple of weeks to find the explanation. When I did, everything fittogether beautifully.

When we went to the next meeting of the NDRC subcommittee, I was prepared toannounce that I could explain the mechanism of this reaction. Paul Bartlettreported before me, however, and said that he had just come to the conclusionthat nitrogen mustard went through cyclic imonium ion. Within a span of a fewweeks therefore, each of us had come to the conclusion that the key intermediatewas the intermediate three-member ring; the intermediate imonium ion for the01:39:00nitrogen mustards and the sulfonium for the sulphur mustards. Our hypothesesexplained everything. Later, evidence was presented to show that you couldpredict rearrangements. For example, the sulfonium intermediate was formed whenyou unsymmetrically substituted Beta-chloro alkylsulfides. I think everybodyagrees that that's the case.

In the sulphur mustard cases I don't think anybody has ever been able to isolatethe intermediate. It's much more reactive. In later work, in cancer chemotherapywork with diethyl chlorethylamine, the cyclic imonium ion is stable enough touse as a reagent. It cyclizes in solution and hydrolyzes only one percent aweek. We just used the cyclic intermediate there. There were great differencesin the stability of those cyclic intermediates. In sulphur mustard I don't thinkanybody has ever been able to prove the intermediate by isolating it, as theyhave in the case of some of the nitrogen mustards.

01:40:00That was an exciting time and Saul Winstein was always kind of miffed that we'dcome to these conclusions during the war before he came up with his idea ofanchimeric assistance. He reacted in this way because these are ideal examplesof anchimeric assistance. Of course, he invented the term anchimeric assistanceto explain other kinds of reactions as well. Paul and I both talked about thisat that Notre Dame mechanism symposium.]

GORTLER: Is that the first time he had heard about this?

PRICE: Yes. He was not involved in that sort of research during the war. I don'tknow what kind of war work he did although he must have done something.

GORTLER: I see.

01:41:00PRICE: I think that it was during the symposium that he first learned that Pauland I had both come up with a mechanism for those reactions.

GORTLER: You mentioned that. Do you remember any more details of his findingthat out? Or had you just talked about it at the time, and you just remember his surprise?

PRICE: Well, surprise and slight annoyance at the fact that he suspected that wemight want to claim more credit than that due to us. We weren't trying to stealanybody's credit for anything. We had done it independently of him . . . well,not entirely independently of him, because Paul Bartlett and I were well awareof that very classic work that Saul did for his Ph.D. topic with Bill Young onthe cyclic bromonium intermediates. That was a classic, a great leap of the01:42:00imagination. Bromonium ions were not nearly as common a thing about which tothink. I guess that only iodonium ions were actually known at that time.

GORTLER: Well, that covers a lot of that material. It was a revelation tome--for both of us in a way--that the war had drawn attention to physicalorganic chemistry and its practitioners. This had a great deal to do with thecrystallization of the physical organic community and its later success.

How were those war problems assigned? Do you remember how you happened to be01:43:00working on the antimalarial project, and the water treatment project?

PRICE: I'm not sure that I recollect how that occurred. I believe, however, thatRoger Adams was very high up in the NDRC operation, and I'm sure that SpeedMarvel was also very

much involved in the upper levels of policy and decision making.

I should remember how the antimalarial work got started. I did get involved withit, and I had two other profs working with me. Initially, it was my project.01:44:00Harold Snyder then joined it and then Nelson Leonard did likewise. So, we had agood team working on it. I just don't remember though how the program actuallygot started and became my responsibility. It's rather ridiculous; I should remember.

GORTLER: How about the water treatment work?

PRICE: The Illinois chemistry department was also the Illinois Water TreatmentCenter. Arthur Buswell, one of the professors there, was its director. Thedepartment had gotten involved, probably through Roger Adams, in the waterproblem and needed some extra help doing the chemical analysis. Since I was the01:45:00mechanisms man at Illinois at that time, I was asked to work with them.Originally I set up a subproject under Buswell. I worked on the mechanisms ofreaction of chemical warfare agents in water. We had a very interesting group.Orville Bullitt, Jr., for example, came complete with wife and maid and notquite a chauffeur.

GORTLER: Who?

PRICE: Orville Bullitt was from a very wealthy Philadelphia family.

GORTLER: I see.

PRICE: Al Pohland was the other fellow who worked with us. Some years later hedeveloped Darvon, which has been in the news a bit recently. We had some otherinteresting people working on this problem, like Bernie Velzen.

When Buswell went off to some other assignment, probably to serve as a reserveofficer, I inherited the whole project along with the pilot plant water01:46:00treatment outfit. We visited all kinds of carbon black manufacturers for theright kind of carbon black, and we designed a little kit that would be sent outin the field for analysis of all kinds of chemical warfare agents in water.

I had those two major programs that were under my aegis, one on antimalarialdrugs and one on water treatment. It's the one on water treatment that got meinvolved in mechanisms. The one on drugs was straight synthetic organic.

GORTLER: When you did the physical organic chemistry, did you think of it as asort of side research? Did you think that it was necessary for yourunderstanding of the problem?

PRICE: It was essential. If we were going to cope with these reagents in water,we had to know what was going to happen to them in water and what happened tothem when they were treated with chlorine. We got involved in oxidation and

01:47:00degradation and learned some very interesting things. We found out that nitrogenmustard, which is a tertiary amine, is rapidly degraded by chlorine water. Atthe time, I thought that this was pretty original. Eventually, however, when welooked deeply into the literature we found that somebody had discovered this along time ago. When you chlorinate trimethylamine, a chlorine goes onto thenitrogen first, apparently to give a quaternary chloramine. It then leaves asHCl, to give a quaternary Schiff base. That then hydrolyzes to give formaldehydeand dimethylamine. The dimethylamine can become a chloramine, split out HCl, andgive the Schiff base of methylamine and formaldehyde. You can thereforeeventually take all of the alkyl groups off nitrogen and destroy the chlorine inthe process.

So, when you're going to treat water that might contain chemical warfare agents,01:48:00you have to know what's happening to them when they are just sitting in thewater, and you have to know what they are going to do to typical water treatmentchemicals. So, we had to do a lot of chemistry.

GORTLER: In a sense, though, you weren't just worrying about the products andthe starting materials, as I think one might have done in an earlier era. Youwere understanding the reactions.

PRICE: Yes. I suppose that because my interests were oriented towardsunderstanding reactions, I was more conscious of doing it that way than I wouldhave been if I'd been a pure organic chemist.

GORTLER: I see, so it wasn't hard to justify what you were doing. They wereinterested in results, and as long as you turned out results, no one questionedyour approach.

PRICE: Yes.

GORTLER: The antimalarial program was essentially a synthetic program.

PRICE: Yes. We attempted mainly to make quinoline analogues of chloroquine. We01:49:00did a few other things, but that was the main thrust of it.

GORTLER: You did later patent some of these syntheses.

PRICE: Yes. One, for example, was the ethoxymethylene malonic-ester synthesis onwhich Roy Roberts worked. We patented it through the government. It was agovernment-owned patent, and it was used commercially. I went out to NationalAniline in Buffalo at least once a month while they were doing the pilot plantwork on that synthesis. It had a big advantage over the German synthesis. I'veforgotten the exact details of the German synthesis, but it started withmetachloraniline. They got a mixture of five and seven chloro nucleus because itcan close in either of two ways. On the other hand, during our synthesis, the01:50:00ethoxymethylene closed almost exclusively seven, almost never five. It wastherefore a much neater, cleaner snythesis and economically competitive. So, thegovernment patented it and it was used for some time after the war as a way tomake 4,7-dichloroquinoline.

Roberts, of course, is now a professor at Texas.

GORTLER: He went to Merck first?

PRICE: That's right. He was at Merck for a while. He had a rather remarkableacademic record. He earned only A's throughout college and graduate school.

GORTLER: He did all of his studies at Illinois?

PRICE: No. He did his undergraduate work at Austin College in Sherman, Texas.

01:51:00GORTLER: For some reason I didn't write down that work on the alkylation usingoptically active . . .

PRICE: Secondary butyl alcohol?

GORTLER: That's right. I thought that was fascinating, as was the fact that youcame up with the optically active product using one catalyst. Does that stillhold true for optically active synthesis?

PRICE: Yes. That was confirmed, I think, by Burwell. I think that with thealcohol and boron trifluoride, we got an optically active secondary butylbenzene with inversion. There was, however, something like ninety-nine percentracemization. So, it fit with the carbonium ion, although with a slightpreference for inversion.

01:52:00GORTLER: That seemed to have been a very up to date analysis that you made atthat time. You really must have been very aware of the kinds of mechanisms youcould get into with Lewis catalysts.

PRICE: You know, people's minds have different ways of working, and mine hasalways been very geometrically and sterically oriented. Geometry was always justa toy for me in school. I had no trouble with it at all. Of course I did a lotof geometric analysis in order to calculate those electrical interactions. Usinggeometry helped me to gauge the distances between charges.

When Roger Adams went off to Washington, which he did quite often, I taught hiscourse in stereochemistry. It was a very easy thing for me to do because I've01:53:00always been handy with geometry and steric factors. I've always felt very muchat home with steric effects and stereochemistry.

GORTLER: That reminds me, I wanted to ask you to tell me what courses you taughtat Illinois and the years that you were there. Do you remember what you first taught?

PRICE: I started teaching the elementary organic course for pre-meds and home ecs.

GORTLER: That's right.

PRICE: I taught that for quite a few years. The other two courses that I taughtthere were the advanced course that Adams taught to graduate students onstereochemistry and the qualitative organic course from Shriner and Fuson.Teaching the latter was fun. Adams' course included a lot more thanstereochemistry; it included chemistry as well. It involved all of the01:54:00stereochemistry and chemistry of sugars. So, it was a fairly broad gauge course.

GORTLER: During your stay there, didn't you introduce a theoretical organic or aphysical organic course? Do you know if a course like that was taught?

PRICE: I don't think we got around to doing that while I was there. We did assoon as I got to Notre Dame. During the war, there was a lot of pressure to keepthe war research going.

GORTLER: That's true.

PRICE: There wasn't too much opportunity to revise the curriculum. We just wentthrough what we had. I left at the end of '45. My new job at Notre Dame began in01:55:00January of '46. The war had hardly ended before I left.

GORTLER: How did you happen to pick up and go? Was the job offered to you?

PRICE: Oh yes. I had jobs offered to me by Pittsburgh and Missouri. I didn'tconsider either offer very seriously because Illinois is a great place to work.Father Moore, the dean of the graduate school, and two professors came fromNotre Dame to talk to me about joining their faculty, with a possibility ofbecoming chairman of the chemistry department. Having turned down Pittsburgh andMissouri, I thought of this as a joke. I had the typical opinion of Notre Dame,01:56:00that it was a football school. I really didn't take it seriously. Yet, becauseI'd never been there, I thought, hell, I might as well get a look at the place.I was tremendously impressed with the beautiful campus, and Father Moore wasjust an absolutely superb human being with very high academic standards. Ofcourse, chemistry was the best department that Notre Dame had. Father Nieuwlandhad pioneered there with some work that had brought in lots of royalties.Because of that, they'd been able to invest a fair amount in the department.

I learned also that, contrary to Illinois where all of the football receiptswent only to the football program, Notre Dame used its football receipts to helppay the bill for other athletic programs. Notre Dame actually had a verysensible policy in this regard. They wanted good athletes but they certainlydidn't have a bunch of basket weaving courses and things like that for their01:57:00athletes. Leon Hart was an engineer and a good one. He had a B average. Oneyear, the captain of the football team was a chem engineer. A first stringtackle took my organic course as a junior. He wanted to be an M.D. and so hequit playing football to make sure that he got high enough grades to get intomed school. Nobody put any pressure on him. It was his choice.

So, I was impressed with the place, and they did offer me the job as head of thechemistry department. I was ambitious enough to think that being chairman wouldbe interesting, especially since I would be the youngest member of the department.

I enjoyed it there. It was, by and large, a very interesting place to work. Wegot a new building and some pretty good people to work in it. Ernest Eliel was01:58:00the first faculty member that I hired, and I think a darned good one.

GORTLER: Yes. He was not a student of yours?

PRICE: No, he was Harold Snyder's at Illinois. I hadn't known Ernest. I guess Ididn't hire him until three or four years after I got there. He must have joinedour faculty about '47 or '48. He got through Illinois in two years and wroteabout five papers. Harold said that he was the advisor to most of the otherstudents in the department. A very smart guy. No, he wasn't the first facultymember that I hired. Paul Doty was one of the first ones and a very interesting character.

01:59:00GORTLER: Paul Doty . . . the biochemist who ended up at Harvard?

PRICE: Yes. Actually he spent almost a month debating whether to leave NotreDame or to go to Harvard. I was very pleased that he didn't just snap at it. Heliked Notre Dame. Milton Burton, who is pretty well known for his work onradiation chemistry, started the radiation lab at Notre Dame that is now well known.

02:00:00Being chairman at Notre Dame was an interesting job, and I enjoyed it. I'm surethat it distracted me from my scientific endeavors, but I still managed topublish quite a few papers.

GORTLER: I think that I counted twenty-one papers by '46. Of course, there was alot of war work.

PRICE: Some of that was from the backlog of war work.

GORTLER: Yes, it was war work, but there were quite a few papers for the nextseveral years.

During your years at Illinois you not only did war work but also pursued yourown research interests. To whom were you talking at Illinois? Who were yourclosest colleagues? When you wanted to talk chemistry to whom did you talk, bothat Illinois and outside of Illinois?

02:01:00PRICE: I suppose that I talked more to chemists outside of Illinois than tothose at Illinois, because there weren't too many at Illinois who wereinterested in my work. I know that I had many discussions with Jack Roberts andnumerous arguments with Saul Winstein. I can't pinpoint the time when theseoccurred, whether before the end of the war or after it, but they certainlyoccurred sometime during the forties. I'm sure that I had lots of discussionswith people like Herb Brown. He's colorful. I'm a great admirer of Herb Brown.

GORTLER: That's interesting because you recommended that I look at a paperwritten in 1951 that reevaluated your views on electrostatic effects and thatcontained some new calculations. [7] I found itinteresting because you made a comment in the last paragraph of the paper thatclearly attributes to Herb Brown a statement that later would be called the02:02:00Hammond Polstulate.

PRICE: I've been a little annoyed about the many things that I originated thatothers christened and claimed as their own. I mean, for example, no-mechanismreactions; that's all over my carbon-carbon double bond book. Nobody hasbothered to mention that. I was one of the very first ones to suggest a cyclicreaction mechanism. Pi complexes were also suggested in that book, beforeMichael Dewar ever mentioned them. He has given me credit for being one of thefirst ones to postulate these complexes. Somehow or other I didn't have theflair to invent a name or something like that, that caught people's fancies. Bythe way, I am glad that you too noticed my comment about Herb Brown.

02:03:00GORTLER: It was apparent that you were talking to Herb Brown at that time. Didyou feel at any time that you were competing with other chemists on particularproblems? Can you recall a specific instance where you felt that you wereactively competing with someone else in order to come up with an answer beforehe did?

PRICE: I guess I've never really felt that I had to beat somebody. I do remembervery consciously on many occasions feeling a little discouraged about chemistry.Why wasn't I getting more done? I then consoled myself by thinking about what02:04:00all of the other guys were doing. That left me feeling a little better.

GORTLER: Yes, inevitably, when somebody else says, "Gee, it's going veryslowly," you feel relieved.

Had Elliot Alexander come to Illinois before you left?

PRICE: No, he was my replacement at Illinois. I did know him, however. He was agraduate of Swarthmore and I remember playing squash with him a few times. Ithink he worked at Du Pont for a year or two after he got his degree.

GORTLER: OK. I haven't followed his career, but somehow I think that he got hisdegree at Columbia with Cope and that Cope was there only during the war years.I guess he was officially listed on the Columbia faculty, but Alexander musthave been one of the few students he had at Columbia.

02:05:00PRICE: Yes. I think that's right. After he got his degree, he worked for a yearor two or maybe three at Du Pont.

GORTLER: I see.

PRICE: I remember playing squash with him down at the Y in Wilmington. We got tobe very good friends. He was wonderful. He and his wife were just absolutelysuper human beings. It was a terrible tragedy that he got killed so young. Hereplaced me at Illinois, but I saw a lot of him. We met at meetings. I rememberplaying tennis with him at the organic symposium at Northwestern, shortly afterthe war.

02:06:00[END OF AUDIO FILE 1.4]

GORTLER: [I'd like to ask you about two other people. First], did VirgilBoekelheide work with you at one time?

PRICE: He worked with me as a post-doc on the antimalarial program at Illinois.

GORTLER: OK. Did you know Frank Westheimer when you were at Harvard?

PRICE: Sure. We were and still are very good friends. I know Frank and his wifevery well. We still exchange Christmas cards and we've had many discussionsabout chemistry.

02:07:00I enjoyed discussing chemistry with Linus Pauling as much as with anybody. Healways amused me immensely. Linus and I never had any serious disagreementsalthough his disciples, people like Wheland and Winstein, considered me to be aheretic. As for Linus, I would tell him what I was thinking about and he wouldagree completely. He had no problems with the way I thought about things. Heknew the limitations of resonance theory--that it wasn't the answer foreverything. He also understood electrical effects.

Linus and I are still good friends. Of course we've shared not only an interestin trying to understand the structure and reactivity of chemicals, but also acommitment to bring about peace.

02:08:00GORTLER: Yes. How did you justify the war work that you did?

PRICE: I didn't have any problems justifying to myself either trying to curemalaria or trying to take toxic stuff out of water. Also, although I'm a Quakerand have a strong interest in promoting peace, I'm not an absolute pacifist. Irecognize the need for a police force to support community interests. I opposethe use of force in self-interest, which is what I think war is. So, I never had02:09:00any serious difficulties doing what I did for the war effort.

I have wondered how I would have reacted if I had been pushed to do work moredirectly related to destructive ends. The closest that I got to that, however,was when I cooperated with Bob Fuson to try to develop water-denial agents.These agents are not toxic but do produce a horrid stench when mixed with waterso that people cannot bear to drink the water. It was thought that these agentsmight be needed in North Africa where wells are a crucial natural resource.Rather than poisoning wells, retreating troops might use a water-denial agent tomake the water taste so unpleasantly that nobody would drink it. That's about asclose as I came to having to work on things that were destructive. Of course, I02:10:00was working in chemical warfare on extremely toxic things, but I was working onhow to detoxify them.

GORTLER: Yes. I noticed that and I thought that that fit in very nicely withyour Quaker upbringing and your later work.

We talked a bit previously about the Notre Dame conference. Can you recallanything else about its organization? You knew that you were going to Notre Dameat the time that you got the idea. It was a great way to start your career there.

PRICE: I guess that I thought that it would be a very good way to put Notre Dame02:11:00on the map. I must say, however, that even though there probably was a planningcommittee, I haven't the vaguest idea who was on that committee.

GORTLER: You have made a number of contributions to theoretical organicchemistry. You've also spent some time in synthesis and structure determination.Did you ever feel that these two aspects of your career were somehowscientifically separate? Or did you think that you were an organic chemist wholooked at a variety of problems?

PRICE: I certainly felt that they were separate. I didn't think that there wasany intimate connection between them. I don't think that I did quite as muchthinking about mechanisms for synthesis as, say, Bob Woodward did. According to02:12:00Bob, those two things were very close together. He liked to use mechanisms as away to devise synthetic approaches. I don't think I was ever quite thatconscious about it, although I did think about the mechanisms involved in reactions.

I might mention a little anecdote about that. Right after the war, in '46 or'47, I read a paper by Herman Bruson while I traveled on a train to the GordonConferences, still held then on Gibson Island. Bruson, of Rohm & Haas, wroteabout the addition of HX compounds to dicyclopentadiene. That norbornene-type02:13:00double bond is very reactive. All kinds of HX compounds added easily to thedouble bond. I guess Bruson had a dozen patents on this area, thousands andthousands of compounds that he'd made by addition of HX to dicyclopentadiene. Heproved that there was a carbon skeleton rearrangement. He deduced the structureof the rearranged product.

Using a pencil I tried to see if the structures that he proposed fit with thenormal carbonium ion mechanism. They didn't. There was no way that he could havegotten the products that he claimed he got. So, I sketched out what I thoughtthe products ought to be.

When I got to the conference, I learned that Paul Bartlett was my roommate. Ishowed Paul what I'd done and he said, "Gee, that looks very reasonable. I'm02:14:00working on dicyclopentadiene; let me try it." Within a few weeks Bartlett provedthat all of Bruson's compounds were incorrectly assigned. I arrived at thatconclusion by considering the mechanisms involved.

Every time I look at a chemical reaction, I like to see if I can imagine whatthe mechanism is for the reaction. It's almost an automatic reflex action. Idon't think it's as consciously planned as it appears to be from a considerationof Bob Woodward's work. Bob certainly gives the impression that it's consciously planned.

GORTLER: Yes. I think most people think about his work in that way. Let's see,he hadn't come to Harvard when you were there. Was he at Illinois when you gotout there?

02:15:00PRICE: Yes. He was there the first summer I was there, the summer of '37. He hadbeen invited to be an instructor in the summer school. Bob completed hisundergraduate and graduate education, through the doctoral degree, at MIT inonly five years.

GORTLER: He fit in well. [laughter]

PRICE: He did not win friends and influence people at Illinois, I'll tell you.Later, Bob and I became very good friends, but her was a very brash andegotistical young man at that point. He thought that he'd really come out to theboondocks at Illinois, and he was very condescending. He had been assigned aneight o'clock class. Well, in Cambridge, of course, there aren't any eighto'clock classes. He just never got there on time. He was also supposed to besupervising a lab, but he was very seldom there. He played poker with Speed and02:16:00a couple of the guys and then never paid his debts. He antagonized people rightand left. Harold Snyder and I were still labmates and post-docs for Roger Adamsthat summer. (I didn't start teaching until that fall). Bob had the office nextto us, and he spent a lot of time in our place bumming cigarettes. Haroldfinally figured out the answer to that.

He kept his cigarettes hidden in a drawer, and kept a pack on the desk with justone cigarette in it. Bob would come in, shake the pack, and look at us. Hedidn't quite have the nerve to take it.

Well, you know, that kind of behavior did influence Bob's career. He never gotthe ACS award in pure chemistry, a gross miscarriage of justice. Illinois profshad a big influence in the ACS, however, and they just could not stomach this02:17:00guy. Once Bob won the Nobel prize and a few things began to fall into place forhim, he mellowed greatly. He's a fine guy now. I've always enjoyed talking withhim. We've had a lot of fun together. But that first summer he taught atIllinois . . .

GORTLER: He just stayed out there for that one short period . . .

PRICE: Just one summer.

GORTLER: Someone else had told me that he didn't win friends and influencepeople out there. He said that the worst thing that Bob did was to borrowglassware and then not wash it after he used it.

PRICE: Well, that's true too. I think Speed got so incensed when Bob didn't payhis poker debts that he wrote to the prof at MIT and asked, "What kind of guydid you send to us?" I think that the prof got after him and made him pay his02:18:00debts. He just was a very brash, egocentric young man.

GORTLER: I'm hoping that he's sufficiently mild enough now that he'll be willingto talk to me one of these days.

PRICE: Hasn't he been willing?

GORTLER: I haven't asked him yet.

PRICE: Oh, it won't be any problem. Bob is a fine guy now.

GORTLER: When I was a graduate student he spent two hours one afternoondescribing possible research problems to me.

PRICE: You won't have any problems with Bob now.

GORTLER: At first I thought, gee, he's off in synthesis. Now, however, he'sbecome a really important figure. He was one of those transitional figures whoapplied physical organic chemistry to synthesis.

In recent years, you've edged into biochemistry. You've worked on alkylations,proteins, and nucleic acids. Can you tell me a little about it? How did you getinto that work?

02:19:00PRICE: It occurred as a direct consequence of both of my wartime projects. Oneof the men in the medical school here at Penn, Buck Jones, had been responsiblefor testing our

candidate antimalarial drugs at the Illinois State Prison. I had worked closelywith him. After I arrived here, he immediately visited me and said that he had abright idea about a drug for cancer.

02:20:00He knew that the attack on a nucleic acid was a key facet in cancerchemotherapy. He also knew that antimalarial drugs intercalated into the DNAchain. That was how they exerted their antimalarial activity. He thought,therefore, why don't we take an antimalarial drug, which has a preference forgoing to these chains, and put an alkylating agent on the end of it? Most ofthese antimalarial drugs have a diethylamine group at the end of the chain. Allyou have to do is to put the two chlorines out there and you've got a drug whichlooks exactly like an antimalarial drug, except that there is a nitrogen mustardat the end. We therefore made a lot of antimalarial mustards, quinacrine,7-chloroquinoline, and a whole host of others. These were extremely interestinganticancer drugs.

02:21:00Buck Jones actually tested one of them clinically because it had been extremelyeffective in mice and rats. Actually, in his clinical tests, it was extremelyeffective in humans. It was probably one of the most potent of all the mustardsfor treating cancer. However, a number of people who were treated got the mostweird psychotic experiences. It was therefore struck from the program.

By the time we were done here at Penn we had made five or six hundred compoundsof modified mustards of all kinds. We also made a variety of heterocyclic02:22:00antimetabolites. After spending five years making compounds, testing them, andfinding that most of them were not much better than nitrogen mustard, we beganto get discouraged about the synthetic approach.

We decided that it would be best to take a mechanistic approach, that is, to tryto determine quantitatively what happens when the alkylating agents react withnucleic acids. So, we started measuring the rates of reaction of adenine,thymine, cytosine, and guanine with nitrogen mustard. We then put on the sugar,put on the phosphate, and strung them together into homopolymers. While doingthis work, incidentally, we used the diethyl chlorethylamine instead of nitrogen02:23:00mustard because doing so assisted our analysis. It is far simpler to look at amonofunctional alkylating agent than a difunctional agent. When you have asequence of two reactions that have different rates you have a much morecomplicated situation.

After we decided to shift to diethyl chlorethylamine, I told an Indian studentwho started this work to put the mustard in as the hydrochloride, neutralize itto pH 7, let it cyclize, and then use it as an alkylating agent. He tried to doall of this, but then returned to me and said, "It didn't cyclize, Doc."

I said, "Go back and do it again."

He did. He then returned and repeated, "It didn't cyclize, Doc."

All of a sudden it dawned on me that in the dichlorethyl mustard, both of the02:24:00chlorines lower the pH of the base to about 7 or 6, so that at pH 7 it's mostlydeprotonated. I checked and the pH of diethyl chlorethylamine is 10. At pH 7only one-tenth of one percent is deprotonated. All we had to do therefore was tomove to pH 10. It cyclized almost instantly. That gave us the stable reagent. Wethen backed it down to pH 7 and we used it for our alkylations.

Most of our alkylation studies actually used diethyl ethyleneimonium ions as thealkylating agent. It reacted readily with nucleophiles. We titrated it withthiosulphate. It reacted with nucleophilic centers and we proved where it wenton the different nucleophiles, guanines, adenines and so on.

I guess that we really only discovered one thing, although it was an interesting02:25:00and important discovery. It had been reported in the literature that when DNAwas in the double helix, adenine didn't alkylate because the nucleophilic centerfrom adenosine is the one that's hydrogen bonded. The guanine nucleophiliccenter was open, and it was known qualitatively that you get 7-alkylguanine.What wasn't known was that it was about fifty times as reactive as ordinaryguanine. There was enhanced reactivity. This explains, of course, why DNA is aselective target for nitrogen mustard. You have such an extremely highlyenhanced nucleophilicity. Enhanced reactivity holds true only in the doublehelix DNA. In random coil, the reactivity drops way down. The double helixstructure definitely affects the reactivity.

02:26:00GORTLER: I see. This probably just exposes the nucleophilic center in certainways, or . . .

PRICE: I don't think that's the main reason. We hypothesized that the doublehelix structure made a very effective structure for distributing the charge thatyou're going to put on the alkylated center. From my old electrostatic days Iknow that whenever you place a charge on a small body, it possesses a muchhigher potential energy than if you put the same charge on a big body. Anythingthat we can do to distribute charge automatically lowers the energy. And, ofcourse, the fact that it's hydrogen bonded means that you can shift the protonmore, from nose to nose, to distribute more charge to the other chain.

GORTLER: Right.

PRICE: The fact that they're also pi-bonded means that the electrons in the baseabove and below could shift into that ring. That leaves these two bases withmore plus charge.

02:27:00When you put some plus charge on the adjacent rings you distribute the chargeover a whole segment of the chain, by both nose to nose proton sharing and cheekto cheek electron sharing.

GORTLER: Right.

PRICE: That was our explanation. You've lowered the potential energy of theproduct very greatly and that lowers the potential energy of the transition02:28:00state. Of course, the nucleophilic center is exposed.

GORTLER: I see, you lower the transition state considerably by stabilizing it.

PRICE: We showed by alkylating a mixture of poly G and poly C that theguanine-cytosine pair was greatly activated by the pairing. That was true forsynthetic as well as for natural pairing. We finally published quite anextensive paper because we had to do all of this groundwork. It was a hell of alot of work to prove that one fact. That was the only surprise and the onlyinteresting feature of the work that really came out and that was quantitatively measured.

We then started to do the same for proteins; that is, to take proteins of knownthree-dimensional structure in order to know what was bonded to what, and to seeif we could come out with any similar observations. Well, we just barely got02:29:00started on it. We published one paper when the grant supporting my antimalarialwork was terminated. My thiobenzene grant was also terminated the same year.These occurrences figured prominently in my decision to retire from chemistry. Ialso thought that I might be able to do something more interesting and usefulfor society in some other field.

GORTLER: How did you begin your writing about evolution and the synthesis oflife? Was it an outgrowth of some prior research?

PRICE: Well, my work on DNA and protein helped me very much because it gave mebackground, but my writing about evolution and the synthesis of life started foran entirely different reason.

Perhaps you don't recall that I was president of the ACS in 1965, and that oneof the few functions that the president has to discharge is to give a02:30:00presidential address. I wanted to do something that I hoped would besignificant. Such an opportunity doesn't come along very often. In fact, I didtwo things as president of the ACS that were of some significance. One was togive the presidential address. The other was to start the Chemistry and PublicAffairs activities of the society.

While trying to decide what to say during my presidential address, I rememberedhaving heard chemists often say, "Gee, everything that's interesting andexciting has already been done; there's nothing left to do in chemistry."

I thought that I'd deflate that sentiment by talking about the synthesis oflife. This kind of talk hadn't been given.

02:31:00There were all kinds of reasons why it would be a very exciting, interesting,and significant enterprise. I said during my address, that the synthesis of lifewould probably be even more significant in the long run than the discovery ofatomic energy. The address attracted a lot of attention, some favorable and somevery unfavorable.

GORTLER: As you might expect.

PRICE: As a matter of fact, six weeks after my talk, Sol Spiegelman reported onthe synthesis of RNA viruses in a test tube--a really remarkable work--andreferred to my talk in his paper. I had predicted that it might take twentyyears. He said that it took only six weeks.

02:32:00Sol had done a beautiful job. He wondered about how an RNA virus works in acell. Why does the RNA virus replicate at the expense of all the other RNA'sthat are synthesized? I mean, there are all kinds of RNA replicases available inthe cell and ordinarily, RNA replicases will replicate any RNA. When an RNAvirus invades the cell, however, most of the RNA that's synthesized is new virusRNA. It turns that on and turns off a lot of other reactions.

Sol hypothesized that an RNA virus might have "messenger" RNA in it, that is,02:33:00that part of the RNA virus that went to the ribosome instructed the ribosome tosynthesize a protein that was a very specific enzyme for replicating only thatRNA virus. So, he looked at virus-infected single celled organisms and foundthat they did have an extra enzyme in them. He isolated that enzyme and put itin a test tube, along with a few virus molecules and a lot of triphosphates,02:34:00ATP, GTP, CTP and UTP for RNA. The enzyme then just started replicating, thatis, synthesizing virus in the test tube. Whether Spiegelman synthesized life ornot depends upon whether you call a virus a form of life.

GORTLER: Right.

PRICE: Having begun seriously to consider the synthesis of life, I got more andmore interested in the topic and have followed the literature about it verycarefully. It, and the related topic of evolution, worked its way into myconcern about society in a very interesting way. I guess that very shortly afterI gave the talk to the ACS, I began talking about and writing articles about the02:35:00relation of order to evolution. I have prepared a manuscript for my latest bookwhich is on the societal and philosophical consequences of this discovery.

The book on the synthesis of life was actually written as a prelude to thislater book. [11] I wrote the former in order to becomeconversant with the scientific facts, and also to establish my credentials towrite about this sort of topic.

GORTLER: You are talking about the book published in the series, BenchmarkPapers in Organic Chemistry.

PRICE: Yes, that's a scientific book. It doesn't deal with societal orphilosophical consequences.

Anyhow, it all started for me with the ACS talk. It was a really remarkablehappenstance that that topic would become so closely interwoven with my concern02:36:00for world order. The principles just flow from one to the other. Theapplicability is remarkable.

02:37:00[END OF AUDIO FILE 1.5]

The work that we did on the alkylation of DNA and protein helped to get meimmersed in biochemistry. It also got me acquainted with a lot of biochemists.All of that helped me to get organized for this kind of work.

02:38:00GORTLER: Before we move on to other aspects of your career, I want to ask you afew more questions about physical organic chemistry. What are the majorcharacteristics of physical organic chemistry? Additionally, what was it andwhat is it?

In just a few minutes I'll ask you where you think it's headed. For the moment,however, tell me its major characteristics.

PRICE: Well, I guess that I can respond in a very simple-minded way by sayingthat an organic chemist is interested in what happens, whereas a physicalorganic chemist is interested in why and how it happens. I think that's the02:39:00distinguishing characteristic between the traditional approach to organicchemistry and the approach of physical organic chemistry.

GORTLER: Yes.

PRICE: If I mix A and B, what do I get? The physical organic chemist wants toknow the intermediates, how the reaction goes, and why it goes as it does. Healso wants to know all of the factors influencing it.

The effect of structure on reactivity is important for both synthetic andphysical organic chemistry. Even the synthetic chemists need to know that.Trying to understand the nature of the effect of the structure on reactivity iscertainly a characteristic feature of physical organic chemistry. Traditionalorganic chemists might have the feel for this in their bones, without reallyknowing why.

GORTLER: Yes. Do you think, in fact, that organic chemistry is now, with theadvent of physical organic chemistry, undergoing some kind of a change?

02:40:00PRICE: I don't think there's any question about it. The organic chemist today isa very, very rare bird if he doesn't think about mechanisms of reactions. Eventhe most synthetic chemist thinks about them.

GORTLER: These are my feelings too. I feel more secure when other people alsosay that they feel that way.

PRICE: Oh, no question about it.

GORTLER: Where do you think physical organic chemistry is headed? Phil Skellsaid to me a year or two ago, "Organic chemistry is dead. The only thingphysical organic chemists do now is to add another figure after the decimalpoint on already well-known numbers."

I'm not sure that I agree with that, but I wonder if you've given it thought?

PRICE: No, I don't agree with that. There are still some reactions that are02:41:00fascinating and that I don't know anything about. As long as they're sittingthere unexplained, they offer a challenge to a physical organic chemist.

I shall cite one example, the norbornene business. If you add HSCN tonorbornene, you get almost instantaneous addition with no rearranging, whereasevery other HX instantly rearranges it. Well, you know, you can say that it justgoes by a four-center addition reaction, and wave your arms at it. But I don'tthink anybody knows or has done work to elucidate that mechanism completely.

I do agree that an awful lot of academic research has no more significance thansolving a crossword puzzle. The researcher may merely put another figure after02:42:00the decimal point on the end of numbers he already knows, or solve a very cleverkind of insignificant problem.

GORTLER: Yes.

PRICE: I think that's probably true in every field of chemistry. It's certainlytrue that the emphasis on practical results led to decreasing financial supportfor physical organic by the NSF. Consequently, physical organic chemistry cameon hard times. Yet, I don't think that that necessarily means that there isn'tanything interesting left to do in physical organic chemistry.

GORTLER: What about the orientation that you took, that is, working more on02:43:00biological problems? I assume that you felt that there was a role for you there.

PRICE: Yes. There probably still is a fairly substantial role for me to play. Ialso think that there is a lot of stuff in that area that we don't understandyet. Somebody with a good background in physical organic chemistry is bound tobe able to make important contributions to biochemistry.

I certainly don't think that everything that can be done in physical organicchemistry has been done, or that it's a dead subject. I think that even if a lotof the fundamentals have been worked out, people will be using these principlesof physical organic chemistry in the way that they approach chemical problems inbiochemistry, solar energy, or whatever.

The interaction of molecules in the solid state is an area that we don't02:44:00understand too well yet. There's a lot of exciting stuff that can be done there.We know dilute solutions because that's where it's easy to study and understandthe behavior of molecules. How the molecules behave en masse, however, isanother thing. A lot of very important things are yet to be found in that area.Consider, for example, heterogeneous catalysis. Think about how importantZiegler catalysis is and about how little people really know about the catalytic center.

Incidentally, this is another of my suggestions that has been totally ignored. Iwas the first one to propose the mechanism of Ziegler catalysis that is nowaccepted as the basic mechanism. One of the few who has acknowledged my priority02:45:00in this matter is Natta. Everyone else ascribes that mechanism to somebody else.I'm not angry or anything but . . .

When we were doing our work on the stereochemistry of epoxide polymerizationwith base and with coordination catalysts, it seemed to me that the mechanismwas related closely to the Ziegler system. At the time, we obtained muchevidence for epoxide polymerization because we had optically active monomerswith which to work. We postulated a two metal center, with coordination of theolefin, and then rearrangement. Everybody accepts that as the mechanism, but Idon't think anybody mentions that I was the first one to propose it.

GORTLER: That's interesting. I was looking at your papers, as well as at someothers, and I realized that you were at the forefront of a number of important02:46:00problems. Did you consciously sit down and say, "Gee, I wonder what's importantthis year? Maybe I should turn my attention to that." Did you think, "This isgoing to be a significant problem?" Or did you just fall into these situations?

PRICE: Well, it was probably not highly conscious, but certainly not entirelyunconscious either. Consider, for example, that I got interested in epoxidepolymerization because I sensed that polypropylene oxide might make a goodrubber. That idea came to me when I was chairing a special conference of the02:47:00National Research Council. We had decided to gather about twenty researchscientists, half from universities and half from industry, and to ask them why arubber behaves the way it does and how we could get better rubberlike compoundsfor low temperature use.

As a result of these discussions, it became clear to me that we needed a chainwith a high degree of flexibility and a low Van der Waals interaction betweenchains. To me, that all meant an ether because an ether has a much lower barrierof rotation than a carbon-carbon bond. It has a very low Van der Waals02:48:00interaction. I thought that one very good rubber for low temperature would be achain of amorphous polymeric ether. The chain had to be amorphous or it wouldcrystallize. I therefore put the methyl group in there and decided to makepolypropylene oxide.

There was a problem associated with my approach, however. Nobody knew how tomake a high molecular weight network structure out of polypropylene oxide. Thatoxide didn't yield a polymeric ether of high molecular weight.

We started to work on that problem at Notre Dame. My idea was to make branched,low molecular weight material and to string it together as a polyester, orpolyurethane, or something like that. We succeeded in doing that. I had astudent who had finished his Ph.D. in June and wasn't going to teach untilSeptember. General Tire agreed to support him. We made a bouncing rubber ballwithin a month or so.

Everybody thought we were crazy. They didn't believe that we were going to use02:49:00polypropylene oxide, known as a lubricating fluid, to make rubber. Of course, wedid. A few years later, the executives of Union Carbide found out that we couldmake rubber out of their lubricating oil, and were they flabbergasted. Ofcourse, we had gotten a patent on the process. I bought my first big racingsailboat with the first royalty check.

This work got me thinking about the problems associated with polymerizingpropylene oxide. Why, for example, does ethylene oxide grow as a living polymerto any molecular weight, but propylene oxide will only grow to a molecularweight of about 2000. I learned that the latter occurs because of a chaintransfer process. The hydrogens on the methyls can be plucked off by a base inan E2 elimination giving an alcoholate ion which starts a new chain. One chainterminates and a new one starts.

02:50:00About that time, Herman Mark gave a talk at Notre Dame. He had learned about theZiegler business and could talk about it long before it had been published. Healso, I think, happened to know about some patented work at Dow.

Dow had discovered a catalyst for propylene oxide that was uniquely differentfrom any others and that gave a high molecular crystalline polymer. It was forthe discovery of propylene oxide what Ziegler's was for propylene. Nobody knewthe crystal structure for either crystalline polypropylene oxide or crystalline02:51:00polypropylene. Because of my background in stereochemistry, it was immediatelyobvious to me that we would gain a big advantage by working on the epoxidebecause we could make the monomer optically active. This was known. We made itoptically active, polymerized it, and got a polymer with the samecharacteristics as the material that Dow had produced. While ours was of lowmolecular weight, it had the same crystal pattern. This proved unequivocallythat the Dow catalyst had been stereoselective in making an isotacticpolypropylene oxide. We made an optically active polymer with the same meltingpoint and the same crystalline structure.

This occurred within six months after Natta had reported on polypropylene.02:52:00Furthermore, Natta's evidence that propylene was a crystalline isotactic polymerwas simply his analysis of the X-ray spacing repeat distance. His interpretationof isotacticity was, of course, purely hypothesis. He has given us credit forbeing the first to prove that a catalyst can be stereoselective and give anisotactic polymer. Our proof was based on an oriented fiber that gave an X-rayspacing of 5.85. This fit nicely with the helical isotactic polymer.

We also asked, "What's the mechanism of this isotactic polymerization?" Weimmediately discovered that we could make a lot of catalysts that Dow didn't.02:53:00They used a ferric chloride-propylene oxide reaction product. We showed that wecould use almost any Lewis acid. These gave the crystalline polymer. When itbecame clear that the important feature was a Lewis acid alkoxide, we postulatedthat the Lewis acid was coordinating with the epoxy oxygen. An alkoxide on themetal then rearranged in the complex by an internal nucleophilic replacement. Wehad an epoxide coordinated with alkoxide--it just migrated over--and that made anew alkoxide into which another epoxide molecule was inserted. We thereforeproposed that another epoxide coordinated where the alkoxide group was, and thenthat alkoxide, with the monomer unit in it, could rearrange, and we'd have twounits; a coordination, rearrangement mechanism.

02:54:00In almost our very first paper, when we proposed that mechanism for epoxide, wealso proposed it for the Ziegler. Everybody had the most weird ideas on whatZiegler was all about--surfaces, and all kinds of crazy things. We said it'sjust a catalyst site and everybody now accepts that. As I say, nobody evercredits Charles Price for having been the first one to propose something. Ihaven't seen anybody ever give me credit. Yet, there's no question that myreport was the first in the literature about that mechanism. We had no evidencefor olefins at that point, except the analogy. It's there, however, and it givesexactly the picture that you see written in all of the articles today.

GORTLER: One never understands the why of that kind of thing. Why is creditgiven in certain instances, and not in others?

02:55:00You talked about your being chairman at Notre Dame. You were also chairman hereat Penn. I suspect that you approached this appointment in much the same waythat you did the one at Notre Dame. When you came here, did you also feel thatyou had to build or revive a department?

PRICE: Oh, no question about that. This department was not highly regarded as acenter for chemical research. I was very much a missionary.

GORTLER: You came here because it was a new challenge?

PRICE: No question about it. You know, it was very amusing. My friends wouldsay, "Hey, I hear you're going to the University of Pennsylvania." They wouldthen pause and say, "Let's see, who's at Penn now?" That was a typical comment.

The chemistry department at Penn had been very inbred. Most of the faculty had02:56:00gotten Ph.D.s at Penn. Nice gents, but they had no reputation. It was,therefore, very much of a building job. The physical facilities were abysmal. Icame here only because Ralph Connor, who was president of Rohm and Haas at thattime, strongly encouraged me to do so. He had been coauthor of a book with me.Reynold Fuson and Ralph Connor had written an elementary book for pre-med and agstudents at Illinois. Snyder and I joined as coauthors for the second edition. [8]

GORTLER: Connor had also been here at Penn, up until the war?

PRICE: Yes. He then got involved in some NDRC work in Washington.

GORTLER: Right.

PRICE: After the war he became director of research at Rohm and Haas. He thenbecame president. He's a wonderful man and a good friend. He strongly encouraged02:57:00me to come here, with the promise that Rohm and Haas would help. It did.

GORTLER: I see.

PRICE: An awful lot of what happened here was due to the assistance of Rohm andHaas. It helped us, for example, to build a new building. This was essential toget us started. Yet, Rohm and Haas never allowed us to use its name, so itdidn't receive credit due to it.

GORTLER: When you came here, were you housed next door, in E. F. Smith Hall, orsomewhere else?

PRICE: Well, there was a much older building right where this one is.

GORTLER: I see.

PRICE: A much older building, an old wreck of a building with a little wing atits back. It seemed to me that we needed to have a decent lab built as quicklyas possible. We needed meanwhile to move into something. Tearing the oldbuilding down and building a new one took a little longer than I had anticipatedit would take, but it was done. First, we built a new wing that was designed forundergraduate labs, but that was used for research until we could build the new02:58:00building designed specifically for research. It was exactly what I planned, butdoing it took about fifteen years longer than I thought it was going to take.

GORTLER: It always does. Let's talk about your presidency and your ACSactivities a little bit. That you ended up as president of the ACS demonstratesthat you have always been fairly active in ACS affairs.

PRICE: Yes, I have been reasonably active in ACS affairs and have done quite afew things at ACS. My two main accomplishments as president were the things Imentioned previously. My presidential address interested me very much. Whetherit did likewise for anybody else, I don't know. I think that starting theDepartment of Chemistry and Public Affairs in the ACS office and the Committee02:59:00on Chemistry and Public Affairs were very significant events. Scientists weren'tsupposed to become involved in politics. I had been active in politics, however,and therefore felt that my relatively easy election indicated that a lot ofchemists thought that maybe it was time to get involved in politics. Everythingjust came together. The time was right.

GORTLER: Did the ACS's political involvement create problems with the IRS? Didits involvement in public affairs mean that the ACS was no longer a tax-exemptorganization. Did that have anything to do with its tax problems?

PRICE: No. I don't think that was a significant part of the problem. I think03:00:00that the main problem was that C & E News had become an income producing operation.

GORTLER: I see.

PRICE: They sold advertisements and received income. They got into troublebecause of that.

GORTLER: Oh, I see. It was not as a result of lobbying or political activities.

PRICE: Not really. In any event, you're allowed to use five percent of yourincome for these activities. We expended a much smaller fraction.

GORTLER: What about the United World Federalists? You've been very active with them.

PRICE: Well, that's an interesting and amusing little sidelight. I was a totallyapolitical animal who hardly even registered to vote, I guess. My political03:01:00conversion occurred just after the war. I went to Washington in '47 for severalmeetings about war operations: with the Chemical Corps, with the QuartermasterCorps, and with the Navy. We were just beginning to rearm. I was feeling veryblue about the prospect of our country's heading for another World War when Ivisited my family's farm in Sellersville, Pennsylvania, before going back toIndiana. My brother played me a tape recording of a talk by Congressman Juddfrom Minnesota. Judd had been at a local Quaker meeting, talking about world government.

His talk hit me right between the eyes. My brother then gave me a copy of EmeryReves', The Anatomy of Peace. [12] Reves had reportedabout the League of Nations for many years as a correspondent, had realized itsshortcomings, and had written that the only way to have an effective world03:02:00organization is to have a world government, rather than a debating society.

I read Reves' book on the way back to Indiana and discovered that his view wasthat of the United World Federalists. By the time I got home, I was a convincedWorld Federalist. I found the answer to the question of how to avoid war.Establish a peace system based on law and order. This was the only alternativeto the war system.

GORTLER: Your brother and someone else in your family, your mother perhaps, werealso involved with the United World Federalists?

PRICE: They were also members, although not as active as I became. I becameactive immediately. I organized a chapter in South Bend and a state branch inIndiana. I even lobbied in the state legislature.

GORTLER: It must have been a little hard to do that out in the conservative Midwest.

PRICE: Yes. Well, in the beginning there was no opposition, and so being anadvocate for a world government wasn't that bad. Eventually, however, oppositionto my views swelled. I became a candidate for the U.S. Senate, and the House, in03:03:00order to become an advocate in our political system for world federalism. Thesewere interesting experiences.

I am still absolutely convinced that there's only one alternative to war andthat it is to have a peace system. Furthermore, the only peace system of which Inow that history has demonstrated works, is some kind of a system of law andorder under government. Certainly the United Nations is not that.

We and the Russians proposed world government in 1961 in a revolutionarydocument, the "Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for DisarmamentNegotiations". The Russians, through Valerian Zorin, and the United States,through John McCloy, and with the approval of John Kennedy proposed it. Endorsedunanimously by the UN General Assembly, it contained two basic principles. Thefirst was to dismantle all national military establishments, all, leaving only03:04:00enough lightly armed forces for internal policing. The second authorized theUnited Nations to settle disputes and to assure compliance. We proposed a drafttreaty, as did the Russians, to implement the agreed principles. All of this wasjust totally sabotaged by the military in this country.

GORTLER: What an incredible idea.

PRICE: According to the military propaganda circulating down in Washington, thiscountry never really meant to abide by the "Joint Statement". It was just propaganda.

I talked to Bill Foster, who was the first chairman of the Arms Control andDisarmament Agency and asked him if the United States' position was justpropaganda. He said, "I want you to know that John Kennedy and I were absolutely03:05:00sincere about general and complete disarmament." He continued, "I will add, thatup until the time of the Zorin-McCloy agreement, we had no problems with themilitary. After that, my negotiating problems were not with the Russians;rather, they were with the military."

The military simply sabotaged Foster's position. That was the essence of anarticle that I just published, "Re-establishing Disarmament on the U.S.Agenda." [13] The World Affairs Council published it forme and Norman Cousins wrote a lovely editorial about it in the Saturday Review acouple of weeks ago. [14]

GORTLER: If you have an extra copy of that article, I'd like to take it with me.Was the Federation of American Scientists an offshoot of this, or was itsomething else?

PRICE: No. It was entirely independent. It grew out of the Federation of Atomic03:06:00Scientists that started just before the end of World War II. It tried to arousepeople to the problems of nuclear weapons. I was the chairman of that group atone time, and somehow I never really clicked with it. Many of its members werein the arms business and were much more interested in what I'd call arms controlthan in solving the war problem by general and complete disarmament.

One of the points I've tried very vigorously to make in all of the things that03:07:00I've written, is that arms control is totally different from disarmament. Armscontrol is part of the war game. You try to get an advantage by limiting armsinstead of by building arms. It has some advantages because it's better than nothaving arms control. It will not, however, get rid of the war system. It's partof it. It has a totally different objective. The general and completedisarmament that Zorin-McCloy envisioned entailed getting rid of our nationalmilitary establishments and setting up the U.N. as an international instrumentof law and order. That's not easy to do, believe me. Yet, it's an awful loteasier than putting the world back together again after a nuclear war.

[END OF AUDIO FILE 1.6]

GORTLER: We've been talking about your work with the United World Federalistsand the Federation of American Scientists. You haven't explained yet how your03:08:00involvement with the latter group started. What exactly is the Federation ofAmerican Scientists? I've read about that group in your biographical sketch inthe '57 edition of Current Biography. [15] I think thatyou were written about in that volume because you were the spokesman for that group.

PRICE: I was national chairman that year.

GORTLER: Yes, that's right.

PRICE: Yes, I had been active with that group for a few years before I becamechairman. Somehow, we didn't quite see eye to eye on the issues of disarmamentversus arms control. They were much more pragmatic about arms control measures03:09:00and nuclear test bans, which was all fine. I have nothing against them, buttheir agenda didn't solve the problem.

GORTLER: Yes. That's right.

PRICE: As with my chairmanship of the board of the Council for a Liveable Worldfor three or four years, I had an awful hard time convincing the Federation ofAmerican Scientists of the importance of GCD.

GORTLER: GCD being?

PRICE: General Complete Disarmament as envisaged in the principles of Zorin andMcCloy. Anyway, arms control has done some useful and important things. CLWleads the fight against the antiballistic missile. My preference, however, is to03:10:00cure the disease rather than to administe some aspirin tablets.

GORTLER: It's a bigger undertaking, but more than worthwhile in the end. Whatabout your current activities? You say that you've retired from active chemicalresearch to take up more important things. Do these mainly have to do with disarmament?

PRICE: I guess the main thing for which I want to work is to establish a systemthat will eliminate preparation for nuclear war. I haven't seen anything thatindicates anything simpler than having necessary institutions to permit nationsto disarm. It's not going to be easy, but I still think it's the only right03:11:00principle. Other principles are like perpetual motion machines. They operateagainst the basic correctness of the way the world works. We're not going toeliminate the threat of war by any arms control measure I've seen discussed seriously.

I'm still active in the World Federalist Association and want to continue to beso. I also happen to be chairman of the board of Swarthmore College, which takessome time and energy. I want to finish the book that I'mwriting. [16] I've written the first draft, and I've beenso busy with this crazy law case, I haven't even had a chance to proofread it,let alone think about where I'm going to get it published. I definitely didn'twant to get a publisher first, because then I'd be hounded to get the thing03:12:00done. I wanted to do it in my own time and my own way, and then see who wants topublish it.

GORTLER: Yes.

PRICE: I'm also on the Phi Beta Kappa Science Book Award Committee. I read abouttwenty-five to thirty boods each year. During the next three months I'll betrying to read this year's crop of books for the Science Book Awards. Threeyears ago I pushed very vigorously for the book by Gerard O'Neill of Princetonabout colonies in space that can be used as manufacturing facilities and that03:13:00can also radiate solar energy back to earth in order to solve our energy problem. [17]

Oh, there are some very interesting books.

GORTLER: Yes. It sounds like it. Well, you're certainly going to be busy. It'shardly a retirement.

PRICE: I also want to do more sailing and to play more tennis and golf than Ihave had time to do lately.

GORTLER: Well, let's round things up. I have a few odds and ends to resolve.First, however, I'd like to ask the one big question. Looking back over your03:14:00career, what are the things that have given you the most satisfaction? I'm surethat it's hard to give an answer. You've done so many things.

PRICE: Well, I've always gotten a big kick out of research, and doing thingsthat were new and different. As you've seen, I'm slightly annoyed and frustratedthat others didn't think that my research was pretty original and significant.

I've always enjoyed the political arena, or I wouldn't have spent as much time03:15:00and energy in organizations like the World Federalists. I have also enjoyed myextracurricular activities. I've always been an ardent sportsman. I don't knowwhether I get more frustration or enjoyment out of playing golf. I still enjoytennis and sailing.

I have a very lovely family. It's been a personal satisfaction. My children havebeen very interesting.

I don't know what great accomplishments I could list.

GORTLER: I think that you've pretty much summed up a lot of what we've talked03:16:00about. If you'd suddenly thought of something new and different, I might havebeen shocked.

You've mentioned your wife a couple of times. What kind of role has she playedin your career?

PRICE: She's not at all scientifically oriented or inclined. We've nonetheless03:17:00always had a very fine relationship. She's always been extremely helpful. Shemakes it possible for me to devote time and energy to the things I've wanted todo. In that sense, she has been enormously helpful. She's always encouraged meto do what I want to do, even something as crazy as running for politicaloffice. She never really thought that I should have done that, but she certainlypitched in and helped. She's also helped me with my writing. She's a good editorand puts a lot of my writing into sharper focus. Additionally, she's been agreat hostess. When I was at Notre Dame, a variety of lecturers visited us.Frequently, they stayed with us, rather than at a hotel. On all kinds of03:18:00occasions, she was very helpful, entertaining all kinds of guests like Japanesepeople, for example. We've had a lot of contacts with Japan. I spent a semesterthere and have had about twenty-five or thirty Ph.D.s and post-docs from Japan.

My relationship with my wife has always been very, very pleasant, helpful, andstimulating. I'm sure that because I didn't have any significant maritalproblems, I was able to devote my time and energy to my jobs.

GORTLER: What effect has you career had on your children? Did they become03:19:00scientists as a result of your work? Did they do other things?

PRICE: No. I've had a good relationship with all of my children. They were allvery ardent sailors and crewed with me. Lots of my racers were big boats, so Ineeded lots of hands for crew. They were an excellent crew. Having a bigsailboat was a great focus for the family. If I ever dared to threaten to sellit, I was just jumped on by all of my kids.

None of the girls chose to become scientists, although my boy could have been anextremely good one. He took advanced chemistry, advanced physics, and advanced03:20:00math in high school. He was on three or four athletic teams, was the captain oftwo or three of them, and was elected president of the student council. He didwhatever he wanted to do.

He went to Swarthmore and within a few months they turned him off to science. Hedropped out twice and barely managed to keep interested enough to finish hisbachelor's degree in biology. He's since worked at three marine biology labs: atWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution, at another lab in Maine, and now atScripps. He's still not interested enough, however, to want to get a graduatedegree in marine biology. He's not sure that he wants to continue to work inmarine biology. He may or may not. I don't know. He still doesn't know what hewants to do. Once he finds out what he wants to do, however, he will be able todo anything. He has the ability.

GORTLER: Yes. It's interesting, how somebody can sometimes get turned off by abad experience.

03:21:00PRICE: Yes. He sure got turned off for one reason or another. I never havereally found out what it was. I think that it may have been the way that physicswas taught. Anyhow, he just got totally turned off from his studies and theacademic venture. He did manage to graduate and earn his bachelor's degree inbiology. He spent the next year and a half as a carpenter's apprentice becausehe didn't seem to have any interest in an academic career.

GORTLER: That happens.

PRICE: I have influenced my middle daughter very significantly, I think. She'snot only a national champion sailor, but she's also been in the sail-makingbusiness for several of the major companies. Most recently, she worked for NorthSails before leaving them in order to go into business for herself. She's03:22:00currently North American champion in her class, the 505 class. She's been aYachtswoman of the Year, at least twice. She won the women's championship anddidn't even defend it. She said, "That's too easy. I'd much rather beat the men."

Let me tell you a story about my daughter. Ted Turner won the Yachtsman of theYear award the same year she won the Yachtswoman of the Year award. He made somethoughtless remarks. He's quite an egocentric character, the Mouth of the South.

GORTLER: Yes. I know who he is.

PRICE: Well, he remarked that the only place for a woman on a ship was in thegalley. Sally is a women's libber, and that just drive her up the wall. Shechallenged him to a match race. He accepted and was willing to sail in a 505,her boat. He eventually backed out of the race. I think it would have been veryintersting to see that race. I think she might have dusted him off. She's beaten03:23:00an awful lot of damn good male sailors including the best North American.Although she did not do that well in the world championship--she finished fifthamong seventy--she's a very good sailor.

I have a son-in-law who's currently a North American Champion. So we've got twoNorth American Sailing Champions in the family. My child and son-in-law havebeen more successful ssilors than I've ever been.

GORTLER: You've had so many careers that if some of it rubbed off some place,that's really very good. I've pretty much concluded my questioning except for afew odds and ends. Do you have anything else to add to the history of physicalorganic chemistry? Do you have any comments to make about where you thinkchemistry might be headed? Has anything else crossed your mind that we haven't03:24:00talked about?

PRICE: Well, I guess there's nothing very spectacular to say. We've covered thewaterfront pretty well, I think.

GORTLER: Well, if anything should come up, we can talk again. I did want to askyou about whom I might interview concerning physical organic chemistry,particularly about those years between '25 and '46 or '50. I've already talkedto Hammett, Bartlett, Westheimer, and Tarbell. I'll be talking to Cheves Walling03:25:00and probably Jack Roberts within a year. Hauser . . .

PRICE: Hauser's dead now, isn't he?

GORTLER: I don't know. A number of people have said he did have some influencein that period. I have to check into that.

PRICE: I have a feeling that he may be dead. I think that he was a real pioneerand original character. If he's alive, he might provide you with an interestinginterview. Conant . . .

GORTLER: He died last year.

PRICE: Oh, he died?

03:26:00GORTLER: I'm very interested in what he did.

PRICE: Bill Young. Is he still alive?

GORTLER: He is. I have not contacted him, but I should.

PRICE: I think that he would be a good one to interview. He was a real pioneer.

GORTLER: Yes.

PRICE: He got into academic administration, but he certainly had an interestingcareer and was very influential. He certainly influenced some of my thinking.

Oh, there's another guy for whom I have great admiration, Melvin Calvin. He goesback quite a ways.

GORTLER: That's right. I hadn't . . .

03:27:00PRICE: Melvin's a fascinating guy. Pauling and I always talked very nicely.Calvin and I did likewise. We've always been very close, visited each other'shomes. I've always felt that we saw things very much eye to eye. We had anentirely different relationship than I had with guys like Winstein and some ofthe others. I'd even argue with Jack Roberts, even though we were good friends.Calvin and I, however, could talk for hours and hours about chemistry and seethings the same way. He went back a long way.

GORTLER: Yes. He started working in the late thirties, about the same time youdid, I think.

PRICE: Yes. He knows all there is to know about thermodynamics.

03:28:00GORTLER: Yes. That's true. His orientation wasn't strictly organic chemistry.

PRICE: Wheland of course would have been an interesting one with whom to talk.He's gone.

GORTLER: All right. Fine. That's just about it. Thank you very much. Iappreciate it.

PRICE: Well, it's been fun and interesting.

03:29:00[END OF AUDIO FILE 1.7]

[END OF INTERVIEW]

Transcript (Published Version)

PDF — 295 KB
price_c_0005_FULL.pdf

Download

Rights

BY-NC-ND 4.0

Download selected document

Original filePDF — 295 KB

The published version of the transcript may diverge from the interview audio due to edits to the transcript made by staff of the Center for Oral History, often at the request of the interviewee, during the transcript review process.