FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Te| BETHESDA 14, MD. July 3C, 1951 Dr. Lawrence Tuttle Division of Biology & Medicine Atomic Energy Commission Washington 25, D.C. Dear Larry: In accord with our telephone conversations regarding the letter of July 3 from Mr. M. W. Boyer, General Manager of the Atomic Energy Commission, setting forth the conditions under which funds from the Atomic Energy Commission would be transferred to the National Institutes of Health to reimburse us for project grants made in behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission for study of the effects of radiations on sub-human primates and on patients undergoing therapy, I shall outline below our comments on these conditions as an informal basis for reaching a satisfactory agreement. If you can secure, also, on an informal basis, advice as to the modifications that might be acceptable to the Atomic Energy Commission to permit reaching a satisfactory agreement, we shall be creteful. After you have reviewed these comments, Mr. Ernest Allen, Chief of Division of Research Grants of the National Institutes of Health, and I shall be glad to confer with you and your colleagues further so that the formal reply from the Surgeon General will be in a form that will not reauire further negotiation. The following points in the terms proposed by Mr. Boyer are the ones which need further discussion. They are numbered to correspond with related items in the letter of agreement from Mr. Boyer, 1. We understood from our earlier conversations with the staff of the Division of Biology & Medicine of the Atomic Energy Commission that the intent of the Atomic Energy Commission was to provide not less than $250,000 annually or such part of that sum as might he nec- essary to finance projects selected by the Atomic Energy Commission for support. The letter indicates a sum of $100,000 for the year from June 1, 1951, through May 30, 1952, although the sum of $250,000 annually is also mentioned in the covering letter. We assume that this confusion arose from the delay between the drafting of the letter of agreement and its signing on July 3, 1951, but it wuldbe unfortunate to proceed on the basis of a misunderstanding. If the agreement is finally worked out on the basis of the points to be mentioned below, we would suggest that it include, also, a correction of this item. . DOS ARCHIVES