1-
Interview with Renato Dulbecco (Nobel Medicine 1975), conducted on October 17, 2009.
https://www.cellcomm.org/forum/interviews-with-experts/interview-with-renato-dulbecco
2-
Translation from page 310 of Dulbecco’s autobiography:
Dulbecco R. “Scienza, vita e avventura” (Science, life and adventure) Sperling & Kupfer, 1989.
[translated from Italian]
"I knew that my trajectory was fixed for the moment, but who knows which circumstances would still have influenced it. Not only my initial direction had changed, zigzagging in real life and in the world of thought, but the world itself had changed. What a difference between the time of Luria and Delbrück and now! I had learned that science is open, that there are no secrets, that colleagues have the right to know everything, the finished experiments, those unfinished, those not yet started and also those at the thought stage. But now who is still telling others about his own experiments, his own plans? Now the world of science is made of sealed compartments, even within the same laboratory sometimes you would not know what the others are doing. Now biology is dominated by biotech companies, the best scientists have shares in some large company, they cannot afford to be open, they cannot afford not to be wealthy. Science is influenced by money: the ideal value was decreasing; the commercial value was increasing. More and more prizes are distributed, with higher monetary value. But I have no regrets, there is no need to be sentimental or nostalgic. We should be realistic and recognize that the world is different from what it was. This does not stop me from behaving like I used to, because that is my style, even if I know that I would receive much less help."
3-
Interview with Alice Huang (former AAAS President) obtained on June 1st, 2023. She was asked to comment on the statements of Dulbecco (sources 1 and 2 above) and about possible reasons for the decrease in open communication in biology.
" I am reading a book about those times [The Exceptions, by Kate Zernike]. The book is about women that have identified biases suffered by women scientists, especially at MIT.
Of all the things you spoke about, size [of the scientific community] makes a tremendous difference. We are only getting bigger and less in touch, even if Zoom and AI might solve some of the problems. I have been thinking about those times quite seriously recently, because of that book.
I can tell you two stories, one on the West coast and one on the East coast. I was lucky to be in Renato’s group, on the West coast. It was an amazing time, there were about 20 or more postdocs, in their 20s, from 5 different laboratories at the Salk, and I was part of that group.
We were all focused on very different questions, but important ones, and we were all able to talk to each other very freely. We talked about our ideas, we socialized. Renato was talking about those days when you did know everybody. People visited, Paul Berg [Nobel Chemistry, 1980] would come down, spend a week, sometimes a month. Paul Berg was similar to Renato in that they would often leave their names off papers from lab members if they felt they had not contributed enough. People like Bob Holley [Nobel Medicine, 1968] would come and visit for a whole semester. These older generation people, as we thought of them, were also freely engaged and we were able to attend each other group meetings. These senior people were all individuals who had come from backgrounds that made them more aware of moral and ethical issues. They carried these values along their whole life.
Paul Berg died recently, and he used to talk about how science was very different in those days.
Then I moved to Boston, and in Boston there are two major Institutions, MIT and Harvard. These institutions represented two very different ways of doing science. A lot depends on the leaders that were there at the time. As you know Salva [Salvador Luria, Nobel Medicine 1969] was at MIT. He was one of those immigrants that came to the US and recognized how lucky he was, and he loved science. He felt that when you hire someone, you hire the best person you can, and you want to support them and you want them to be successful. The expectation was that the majority of the people hired at MIT would be expected to stay and be given tenure. The opposite was true at Harvard. Harvard had the reputation that you hire three people and only one out of three are going to make it. The leadership there was very different, they believed in being very competitive. It was well known that one of the professors would assign the same problem to both a postdoc and a graduate student in his own lab, not tell them about each other and let them find out and become very competitive about it. Only one of them obviously would be successful. I remember discussing this contrast of these two institutions. I was at Harvard for over 20 years and the environment there was very different from MIT, except that we had a very small group of Professors at the medical school that always seemed to help each other out, they organized dinners that were like small salons and provide a much more welcoming environment, they would assign special tasks for younger professors when we had visitors, so the younger professors would get a chance to know the visitors better. When the promotion of junior faculty would come up for tenure, they were the ones that did their best to support them, rather than be the gatekeeper. Later on, I discovered that they were all from Johns Hopkins, where I got my degree. So they were looking out for me.
You can take a larger organization and you can break it down into smaller groups and size makes a fantastic difference. You need to know the people and develop trust. That is important.
There was a major change in biomedical science, Renato saw it and I certainly saw it firsthand, when the incentives and the rewards got bigger, and biotechnology became something that you could use to make a lot more money. The competition became much harder. A Professor at Harvard famously said that if you were not getting into biotechnology, you would be like the ugly woman at a party standing on the sidelines and not being invited to dance.
On another topic, I remember that I used to find out the people in my field in the city I was in, and I would make sure they got my preprints. That is how I ended up getting a job at Harvard. We were not worried that other people might try to steal our findings before publication. There is now a new movement to share preprints in biology, using electronic repositories.
When I was at the Salk it was a time of fast changes in virology. There were so many ideas around that what mattered was to do the experiments. There were too many good ideas floating around. If you did an experiment, you would immediately get an answer. Those people that could work the hardest and the fastest could get ahead.
Regarding the sharing of ideas, in Renato’s group we all felt that ideas were cheap, but it was much harder to take those ideas and prove something experimentally. As the times went by, we all began to realize that some ideas are cheap, but you had to judge how easy they are to be realized, and then you had to be more cautious when you were at meetings and not share everything. I certainly think that science would move faster if there was more sharing of ideas and results. It would also be helpful to know more about negative results and blind alleys already explored. This would happen in an ideal world.
I think that this discussion really puts the finger on something that is missing in science now. I would be happy to hear the opinions of other colleagues."
4-
Paul Berg (Nobel Chemistry, 1980) from
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, volume 9, pages 352–353 (2008)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrm2385
“ Science has now become so competitive that reviewers are unable to set their biases and prejudices aside when they review research that competes with their own work. So the spirit of openness and collaboration that dominated the early years of molecular biology has certainly been lost and competitiveness is souring a lot of the pure fun of doing science. I have always loved to talk about science and about what was going on in my own research laboratory, but I was taken advantage of on several occasions by people essentially co-opting what I told them in private. That type of experience diminishes the excitement and fun of doing research.”
5-
Sydney Brenner (Nobel Medicine, 2002) from his book "My life in Science", 2001
Page 186
“The other things that are being driven now are the material aspects of science: getting enough money for the lab. I think quite that quite a lot of activities there can lead to, if not fraud, certainly exaggeration, if one can put it this way. There is a lot of concealment nowadays. A lot of work is kept secret and there’s no free exchange in the sense that people don’t tell you what they’re doing if they think you’ll get there first. So competition does make for a kind of struggle that has its bad effects.”
6-
Paul Nurse (Nobel Medicine, 2001) from "Biology must generate ideas as well as data" Nature, 597: 305, 2021.
" Accepting a Nobel prize nearly two decades ago, my old friend Sydney Brenner had a warning for biology. “We are drowning in a sea of data and starving for knowledge,” he said. That admonishment, from one of the founders of molecular biology, who established the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans as a model organism, is even more relevant to biology today.
Rather often, I go to a research talk and feel drowned in data. Some speakers seem to think they must unleash a tsunami of data if they are to be taken seriously. The framing is neglected, along with why the data are being collected; what hypotheses are being tested; what ideas are emerging. Researchers seem reluctant to come to biological conclusions or present new ideas. The same occurs in written publications. It is as if speculation about what the data might mean and the discussion of ideas are not quite ‘proper’."
7-
Statement received by email from Maureen Dulbecco (wife of Renato) in June 2023.
"I agree entirely with the comments Renato made about science then and now. Nobody thought about patents. Starting a private company was also unheard of. Renato always said that he grew up scientifically in the golden age of science."
Mentors and Moral Leaders
8-
From Dulbecco’s autobiography:
Dulbecco R. “Scienza, vita e avventura” (Science, life and adventure) Sperling & Kupfer, 1989.
[translated from Italian]
Page 305
About scientific teachers and leaders:
"The school of Levi gave me enthusiasm for research, earnestness in work, self-criticism; those of Luria and Delbrück provided novel and original ideas for biology; about myself, I think I have transmitted a new line of research."
9-
Renato Dulbecco - Caltech Oral histories - 1998
https://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/26/
Interviewer: "Let’s see. Looking back at influential people in your career?
Dulbecco: Well, influential people. First of all, Giuseppe Levi, as I described, because he was the origin. And Rita Levi-Montalcini, because we were good friends and we influenced each other in a very positive way. Luria, Max Delbrück. These were really the crucial people."
Giuseppe Levi (1872-1965)
10-
Statement received by email from Maureen Dulbecco (wife of Renato) in June 2023.
"Renato had the greatest admiration for Giuseppe Levi and always credited him for his own scientific success and that of Salva [Salvador] Luria and Rita Levi-Montalcini. All three were students in Levi’s lab at the same time. (It was Salva who encouraged both Renato and Rita to come to the United States in 1947.) He not only admired Levi for his wisdom and teaching skills but also for his brave and overt stance against Fascism."
11-
Renato Dulbecco - Caltech Oral histories - 1998
https://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/26/
"But the important thing was Levi’s personality, because he was highly encouraging and stimulating. On the other hand, he was critical to the maximum extent."
"Very good training. He was inspiring and critical at the same time. Out of his laboratory essentially came the only three Italian Nobel Prizes [in Medicine]: Rita Levi-Montalcini [1986], Salvador Luria [1969] [and Dulbecco, in 1975—ed.]. And certainly he had lots to do with that—not in the actual work that was done, because that was way ahead of the knowledge and thinking of the time, but in building up the personality."
[Note that there has been only one more Nobel Prize in Medicine that was trained at an Italian University, Camillo Golgi, who obtained the Prize in 1906]
12-
Levi-Montalcini R (Nobel Medicine, 1986) "Cantico di una vita", 2000 [collection of letters sent to family members]
[translated from Italian]
Page 54,56, 57
Describing a visit of Giuseppe Levi to her lab in the US
"St. Louis, 19 November 1950 [...]
"We did our best to get along and it was almost like in the old times emotionally; much less scientifically. I mentioned to him, in the long hours spent in the lab together, a new development of my work, originating from observations of my samples. He started screaming that they were all illusions, and told me, in his usual dictatorial manner, that I should abandon this dubious line of work."
[...]
St. Louis, 26 November 1950 [...]
"Yesterday afternoon the old lion came back. [...] Regarding my work he took back his hasty judgement and he admitted that I was right and that I was following a promising direction. [...]
As you can see the roars of old lions should not be taken too seriously. I will therefore continue research in this direction (I would have done it also without his approval) and I hope something good will come out of it.
[...] Our relationship is not good, it is excellent."
Page 70,
"St. Louis April 1st,1951[...]
[after mentioning disagreements with Giuseppe Levi]
With Renato [Dulbecco] and Morin (or Fred, how they call him here) we tried to analyze the reasons for this devotion [for Giuseppe Levi] which implies respect even if we do not accept his suggestions. We concluded that it is beautiful to have been his pupils, but it is more beautiful not being such anymore now."
Page 265,
"St. Louis, April 26th,1970 [...]
A friend that I had not seen for many years - friend of Luria and Renato [Dulbecco] - asked me at
Lake Placid how to explain the miracle that Luria, Renato and I came out from an unknown school like that of Turin. Luria told him that the credit goes to Giuseppe Levi and this - at least in part - it is true."
13-
Levi-Montalcini R. “Elogio dell’imperfezione” (In praise of imperfection) Baldini Castoldi, 1987.
Pages 268-9 [translated from Italian]
The last meeting with Giuseppe Levi:
"[Levi maintained] till the very end an interest in research as an instrument of understanding and not as an object of competition and an instrument of power. At a time when these seem to be the standards that guide scientific activity, our last discussion, where he followed with strong interest the summary of my research, revealed to me the secret of the strong influence he had on young people: it originated from the passion with which he pursued his studies and directed those of his trainees, indifferent to the honors and praises given to senior figures."
About Giuseppe Levi see also the Interview with Carlo Ginzburg, his grandson and a well-known historian:
https://www.cellcomm.org/forum/interviews-with-experts/interview-with-carlo-ginzburg
Max Delbrück (1906-1981)
14-
Renato Dulbecco - Caltech Oral histories - 1998
https://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/26/
[About Max Delbrück]
"Dulbecco: Oh, he was wonderful, because—in effect, he was almost like Levi. You see, Levi was encouraging but very strict. And he wanted to have evidence. Because it’s so easy otherwise to have an idea.... I always said that in science the ideas are the easy thing, the difficult thing is to prove them. Max was like that—but to a very extreme point, because of his origin. And in a way that wasn’t bad, because none of these things prevented people from doing what they wanted to do. And on the other hand, maybe he made them think, to be sure. So you need a person like that, absolutely."
15-
Dulbecco R. “Scienza, vita e avventura” (Science, life and adventure) Sperling & Kupfer, 1989.
[translated from Italian]
Pages 190-191
" I remembered a recent discussion with Max, which also involved Jim Watson, who was full of new ideas. We were both interested in the molecules responsible for biological phenomena, because, after the discovery of DNA structure, one could foresee the development of a new biology, a molecular biology, based on the properties of these molecules. After a long discussion about this, we went to talk to Max. However, he countered that nothing was known about biological molecules, that it was not worth talking about it until they were known. I suggested that in order to discover them we needed first to believe they existed, but Max did not agree. The discussion was long, but we could not make him change his mind. On the contrary he tried to convince us to stop thinking about a molecular biology, because it was too early. I was quite disappointed because I was hoping to receive his support. Jim, more practical, was not too upset, he said that he would have continued to study the molecules important for biology, starting from RNA; this was chemically very similar to DNA and according to him should have a similar structure."
Page 197 [describing an experiment that he abandoned after initial failures, also influenced by criticism from Max]
" After six months another scientist, Sol Spiegelman, published the results of the same experiment, which were exactly those I expected, and he drew the same conclusions. [...] What a pity, I thought, having come close to the goal and having failed. [...]
I decided that I would have continued asking Max about his opinion, but the final decision would have been only mine."
16-
Levi-Montalcini, Rita. Senz'olio controvento (Italian Edition) Baldini+Castoldi. 1996
[translated from Italian]
page 122
Addressing ideally Max Delbrück:
" At your death, as written by your daughter Niki, hundreds of testimonials that recognized with gratitude your role as spiritual father reached Manny, the companion of your life."
page 126
" The attraction that from the first meeting Bohr exerted on Max was not only due to his personality, but also to the extraordinary contributions that Bohr had already given over many years to the field of theoretical physics. Not less important was his way to manage the laboratory and to establish personal relationships with his collaborators (both old and recently arrived); he made them part of his research and of his family circle. This is what became known as the "spirit of Copenhagen". In later years Max introduced this spirit at Caltech. The spirit of Copenhagen was not only based on the work relationships that Bohr established with his collaborators, but also on his sharing his interest in philosophical problems."
17-
Gunther Stent in Wolpert L, and Richards A. A passion for science. Oxford University Press; 1988.
Pages 113-114 [Gunther Stent was the first postdoc in the lab of Delbrück at Caltech. He started working there in 1948.]
“ Delbrück’s influence in molecular biology is very curious in that he was a kind of Gandhi figure really. His strength was his incorruptibility. He was not a leader in the sense that he actually made good suggestions or that his intuition was especially good. It wasn’t bad, but his role was essentially moral. Everyone’s intention or aim was to please him. Prizes, or recognition by others, were only secondary. The main thing was, when you did something, you were hoping that Max would approve of it. And therefore things like stealing or cut-throat competition didn’t exist because Max would see through them. It would be like God, you see. If you did something illegal, maybe you’d get away with it with a fellow mortal, but God would know that you’d cheated.
‘And did everyone feel the same way about Delbrück?’
All of the group, the so-called phage group, felt that way. So it created order. Now the point was that very often Max’s opinions were incorrect, and so it was also a test. You often had to do something against his views, but he would respect it. You would say ‘I want to do this’ and he’d say ‘It’s nonsense. It will never show anything.’ But one did it anyway, and if you could then show him good results, then he would of course immediately honor them. He would feel even better that against his advice, you had prevailed. But he was always the standard of integrity, and that is what made this movement possible."
18-
Article about Max Delbrück memorial held at Caltech in 1981.
Staff (1981) Max Delbrück 1906-1981. Engineering and Science, 44 (5). pp. 18-20.
https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3293/
Seymour Benzer (Lasker Award 1971, postdoc with Delbrück from 1949 to 1951): [Max] "once said to me of Jim Watson, 'Jim used to love me like a father, and now he hates me like a father.' Jim will speak of Max as a scientific father in the phage era."
[...]
James Watson (Nobel Medicine, 1962, postdoc with Delbrück in 1953): [Max] "abhorred the petty, and in searching for the deepest of theories he insisted that we work together in a collective, generous fashion. The selfish and the avaricious were not tolerated [...] There was no hierarchy in which to fit; and the informality in which ideas were accepted or rejected gave us all the chance to do our best - and to dream that we might find out later the ultimate of answers. Never did Max divert toward his own glorification the talents of his disciples, but he always made sure that when we claimed a decisive result that he was also convinced so that we would not be led astray by the haste of our youth.
I still cannot accept that Max is not here and worry that my words will not please him. I want badly to say what I never had the courage before to reveal - save now for my wife and children - that Max meant more to me than anyone else. I hope I did not too often needlessly disappoint him."
David Presti [who was Delbrück's last graduate student]: " He also often expressed an attitude that was extraordinarily skeptical and scathingly critical, but at the same time very tolerant. Although he would all too often be heard to say, "I don't believe a word of it!" he would lend support while you proved him wrong. In fact, in a way, I think he actually delighted in being proved wrong, just so long as the proof was solid. [...] Max always insisted on openness in scientific research and had little regard for empire-building at the cost of openness. A spirit of integrity and cooperation pervaded his laboratory at Caltech, from the era of phage research through the days of the Phycomyces sensory transduction group in which I worked. Max's style of doing science may be approaching extinction as scientific research becomes more and more a big business - more a domain of the ambitious and less a "haven for freaks," as Max liked to say."
19-
Gunther Stent in "Inspiring science. Jim Watson and the age of DNA". 2003
Page 12
[James Watson] "moved to Cambridge to try to work out the structure of DNA. He did so against the advice of many friends (including myself) and in defiance of Paul Weiss, the Chairman of the Merck Fellowship Board, who cut off Jim's fellowship. Max [Delbrück] and Luria too didn't expect that Jim would actually succeed in his ambitious project, but they managed to persuade the March of Dimes to support Jim's stay in Cambridge."
20-
James Watson (Nobel Medicine, 1962) "The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA" 1968.
Page 179
"Pauling first heard about the double helix from Delbrück. At the bottom of the letter that broke the news of the complementary chains, I had asked that he not tell Linus. I was still slightly afraid something would go wrong and did not want Pauling to think about hydrogen-bonded base pairs until we had a few more days to digest our position. My request, however, was ignored. Delbrück wanted to tell everyone in his lab and knew that within hours the gossip would travel from his lab in biology to their friends working under Linus. Also, Pauling had made him promise to let him know the minute he heard from me. Then there was the even more important consideration that Delbrück hated any form of secrecy in scientific matters and did not want to keep Pauling in suspense any longer."
21-
John Cairns (former CSHL Director), preface to the expanded edition of "Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology" 1992, from the 2007 Centennial Edition - Page XV.
"The object of the book was, in part, to give the reader an idea of Max Delbrück's magical character. I, for one, had hoped that the book would show how it came to pass that Delbrück had acquired such a circle of devoted admirers, who, however, would tell newcomers that they should not listen to Max or be influenced by him in any way whatsoever."
22-
John C. Kendrew (Nobel Chemistry,1962) expanded edition of "Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology" 1992, from the 2007 Centennial Edition - Page 347
"Delbrück's influence, although sometimes superficially destructive, was in fact of the most positive kind. [...] His role was that of Socrates, and like Socrates he was constructive, and led others to be constructive, by way of criticism."
The Scientific Revolution
23-
Carlo Ginzburg, “High and Low: The Theme of Forbidden Knowledge in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, 1976, Past & Present, No. 73 (Nov., 1976), pp. 28-41
During the Renaissance there were still widespread traditional exhortations against looking into spheres of knowledge (cosmic, religious, political) that were considered forbidden for humans. "The ideological meaning of this triple exhortation is quite evident. It tended to maintain the existing social and political hierarchy by condemning subversive political thinkers who tried to penetrate the mysteries of the State. It tended to reinforce the power of the Church (or churches), subtracting traditional dogmas from the intellectual curiosity of heretics. As a side effect of some importance, it tended to discourage independent thinkers who would have dared to question the time-honoured image of the cosmos. ... However, at a certain point some of the traditional limits imposed on human knowledge were overcome. We have only to remember the incredible progress made by astronomical science from the beginning of the seventeenth century. Certainly, men like Galileo or Kepler did not hesitate to look at the skies, even exploiting such new artificial devices as the telescope … the secrets of Nature, began to be unveiled."
24-
Joel Mokyr, “The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy” Princeton University Press, 2002, page 37
"The Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century was the period in which “open science” emerged, when knowledge about the natural world became increasingly nonproprietary and scientific advances and discoveries were freely shared with the public at large. Thus scientific knowledge became a public good, communicated freely rather than confined to a secretive exclusive few as had been the custom in medieval Europe."
25-
David Wootton, "The Invention of Science" Harper, 2015, page 13.
The "Scientific Revolution ... has transformed the nature of knowledge and the capacities of humankind. Without it there would have been no Industrial Revolution and none of the modern technologies on which we depend."
26-
René Descartes - DISCOURSE ON THE METHOD OF RIGHTLY CONDUCTING THE REASON, AND SEEKING TRUTH IN THE SCIENCES, 1637
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm
"But as soon as I had acquired some general notions respecting physics, and beginning to make trial of them in various particular difficulties, had observed how far they can carry us, and how much they differ from the principles that have been employed up to the present time, I believed that I could not keep them concealed without sinning grievously against the law by which we are bound to promote, as far as in us lies, the general good of mankind. For by them I perceived it to be possible to arrive at knowledge highly useful in life; and in room of the speculative philosophy usually taught in the schools, to discover a practical, by means of which, knowing the force and action of fire, water, air the stars, the heavens, and all the other bodies that surround us, as distinctly as we know the various crafts of our artisans, we might also apply them in the same way to all the uses to which they are adapted, and thus render ourselves the lords and possessors of nature. And this is a result to be desired, not only in order to the invention of an infinity of arts, by which we might be enabled to enjoy without any trouble the fruits of the earth, and all its comforts, but also and especially for the preservation of health, which is without doubt, of all the blessings of this life, the first and fundamental one; for the mind is so intimately dependent upon the condition and relation of the organs of the body, that if any means can ever be found to render men wiser and more ingenious than hitherto, I believe that it is in medicine they must be sought for. It is true that the science of medicine, as it now exists, contains few things whose utility is very remarkable: but without any wish to depreciate it, I am confident that there is no one, even among those whose profession it is, who does not admit that all at present known in it is almost nothing in comparison of what remains to be discovered; and that we could free ourselves from an infinity of maladies of body as well as of mind, and perhaps also even from the debility of age, if we had sufficiently ample knowledge of their causes, and of all the remedies provided for us by nature. But since I designed to employ my whole life in the search after so necessary a science, and since I had fallen in with a path which seems to me such, that if any one follow it he must inevitably reach the end desired, unless he be hindered either by the shortness of life or the want of experiments, I judged that there could be no more effectual provision against these two impediments than if I were faithfully to communicate to the public all the little I might myself have found, and incite men of superior genius to strive to proceed farther, by contributing, each according to his inclination and ability, to the experiments which it would be necessary to make, and also by informing the public of all they might discover, so that, by the last beginning where those before them had left off, and thus connecting the lives and labours of many, we might collectively proceed much farther than each by himself could do."
27-
Extract from Letter sent on 2 Jan 1672 from Henry Oldenburg to Isaac Newton.
https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/el_o2_64?page=1
"Your ingenuity is the occasion of this addresse by a hand unknown to you. You have been so generous, as to impart to the Philosophers here your invention of contracting telescopes. It having been considered and examined here by some of the most eminent in Opticall Science and practise, and applauded by them, they think it necessary to use some meanes to secure this invention from the usurpation of forreiners ... [he therefore suggests sending a description of the invention] in a solemne letter to Paris to M. Hugens, thereby to prevent the arrogation of such strangers, as may perhaps have seen it here ... that it being too frequent that new inventions and contrivances are snatched away from their Authors by pretending bystanders."
28-
Henry Oldenburg, The Introduction, Philosophical Transactions, 1665, Vol. 1 pp. 1–2
http://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1665.0002
"Whereas there is nothing more necessary for promoting the improvement of Philosophical Matters, than the communicating to such, as apply their studies and endeavours that way, such things as are discovered or put in practise by others; it is therefore thought fit to employ the press as the most proper way to gratifie those, whose engagement in such studies, and delight in the advancement of learning and profitable discoveries doth entitle them to the knowledge of what this Kingdom, or other parts of the World, do, from time to time, afford, as well of the progress of the studies, labours, and attempts of the curious and learned in things of this kind, as of their compleat discoveries and performances: to the end that such productions being clearly and truly communicated, desires after solid and usefull knowledge may be further entertained, ingenious Endeavours and Undertakings cherished, and those, addicted to and conversant in such matters, may be invited and encouraged to search, try, and find out new things, impart their knowledge to one another, and contribute what they can to the Grand design of improving Natural knowledge, and perfecting all Philosophical Arts, and Sciences, All for the Glory of God, the Honour and Advantage of these Kingdoms, and the Universal Good of Mankind."
29-
Letter from Newton to Oldenburg, 26 april 1676
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00268
Yesterday I reading the two last Philosophical Transactions, had the opportunity to consider Mr Boyles uncommon experiment about the incalescence of Gold & quicksilver. I beleive the fingers of many will itch to be at the knowledge of the preparation of such a quicksilver, & for that end some will not be wanting to move for the publishing of it, by urging the good it may do in the world; but in my simple judgment the noble Author since he has thought fit to reveale himself so far does prudently in being reserved in the rest. [...] But yet because the way by which quicksilver may be so impregnated, has been thought fit to be concealed by others that have known it, & therefore may possibly be an inlet to something more noble, not to be communicated without immense dammage to the world if there should be any verity in the Hermetick writers, therefore I question not but that the great wisdom of the noble Authour will sway him to high silence till he shall be resolved of what consequence the thing may be either by his own experience, or the judgement of some other that throughly understands what he speakes about, that is of a true Hermetic Philosopher, whose judgement (if there be any such) would be more to be regarded in this point then that of all the world beside to the contrary, there being other things beside the transmutation of metalls (if those great pretenders bragg not) which none but they understand. Sir because the Author seems desirous of the sense of others in this point, I have been so free as to shoot my bolt: but pray keep this letter private to your self.
Your Servant
Is. Newton.
30-
De Humani Corporis Fabrica, by Andreas Vesalius
Extracts from Dedication and Preface.
1543 Edition -
In 1543 Vesalius was a Professor at the University of Padua.
https://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/zoom/6299044
" Licet interim non me lateat, ..." [penultimate page of Preface]
Translated from Latin:
"I am aware that that my effort will have little authority, because I have not yet passed the twenty-eighth year of my life; I am also aware that I will not be safe from the attacks of those who did not stand by me when I taught Anatomy, or who themselves did not diligently undertake it, and who will, at the first opportunity, devise various reasons in defense of Galen; unless my effort comes to light recommended by the great patronage of some great power."
[in the following text he makes clear that the greatest protection he can obtain is that of the Emperor Charles V].
1555 Edition -
In 1555 Vesalius was employed at the court of Emperor Charles V.
https://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/histoire/medica/resultats/index.php?do=page&cote=00302a&p=8
" At interim non me latet, ..." [penultimate page of Preface]
Translated from Latin:
"I am aware that that my effort will have little authority, because I have not yet passed the twenty-eighth year of my life; I am also aware that I will not be safe from the attacks of those who did not diligently pursue Anatomy like we did in the Italian schools; those who are now old, consumed by envy for the correct discoveries of the young, will be ashamed to have followed Galen along with others, and to have been blind until now, and to have not noticed what we now propose, even though they claim a great name for themselves in the art; unless my effort comes to light recommended by the great patronage of some great power."
[in the following text he makes clear that the greatest protection he can obtain is that of the Emperor Charles V].