GUTH 233scientists and promoted a great deal of “self-generated” interdisciplinary
research.^6 This freedom to work together also had a salutatory effect
of helping reduce competition among scientists. In view of the strong
administrative support for investigative freedom and the absence of
competition for research funding, it is not surprising that significant
“animosities” were rare.
The present-day structure of the institute’s laboratories is, of course,
quite different, and reflects the interdisciplinary nature of current re
search. But I wonder whether working on large group projects causes
scientists to be fearful that open discussion of ongoing work might neces
sitate inappropriate discussion of the work of others in their team.
The university background of the laboratory chiefs also led them to
establish procedures for ensuring the academic freedom of their scien
tists. In the belief that the scientists should have a voice in administrative
decisions, and to provide a forum for discussion of major decisions that
affected them, they established an elected Assembly of Scientists as the
governmental equivalent of the university’s “Faculty Council.” This
Assembly was designed to promote academic freedom, not restrict it;
one of its major functions was to prevent the government or the NIH
administration from attempting to control or micromanage intramural
research. Thus, in the early days of the NINDB, the philosophy of the
administration and the relationship between scientist and administra
tion were congruent with those of academic institutions. In fact, there
were pressures from some intramural scientists to expand the mission of
the NIH to full university status. If my recollection is correct, Giulio
Cantoni, chief of the Laboratory of Cellular Pharmacology, was a
major advocate for this transformation. Although this proposal was
not acted on, the NIH scientists were encouraged to participate in the
teaching and research activities of the universities, and various formal
collaborative arrangements with universities were established to facili
tate these interactions.
In the early 1950s, new institutes such as the NINDB were just
being established. Although little was known about this new research
institute, university professors were beginning to accept positions at the
NIH and word of this spread quickly through their institutions. For
example, I learned of the NIH through those teachers who had signed on