Night had dropped over the buildingscape, but every structure burned—cubist crystal palaces, technological Oz of local urgencies, with nobody manning the controls. I turned in mid-bridge and looked back where we had walked, saw the miles of fossil-fuel blazing, the millennia of buried plant beds going up in smoke in an endless point-tapestry of yellows and fire-blue greens and incandescent whites—a rush of unstoppable, jarring intervals. No matter how I moved or where I stood, I seemed plunged dead-set in the middle of the known world.
TODAY IN HISTORY
Cyfer is not what it advertises itself to be. The four senior scientists and three apprentices form not so much a real research team as a loose specialist confederation. Each member pursues a personal line aside from the coding question. A cross section of disparate disciplines, they have been brought together by Ulrich for communication that could produce the hoped-for experimental avenue, give them a bead on the big picture.
Assembling such a band of crossovers initially struck Ressler as half-baked. How dare they jump headlong into the hottest topic now going, a field already filled with skilled investigators? Yet the more he mulls it over, the shrewder Ulrich’s move seems. Molecular genetics, precisely because it is rapidly converging on a cross-disciplinary synthesis, requires exactly this assorted band, technically adept but without the retarding lead.
The field is dense with DPs: Gamow, Avery, Franklin, Chargaff, Griffith, Hershey, Luria, Pauling. The purebred geneticist among them is the rarest of blood groups. The coding problem can be approached from any angle: math, physics, stereochemistry. The problem in this moment of synthesis is that the mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biologists don’t all speak the same language. It’s all interlingual patois. Ulrich’s assembling a few native speakers of the various dialects to meet weekly increasingly seems a master stroke. The group has built into it all the expertise it needs. Ressler himself is to play a lead role: state-of-the-art liaison. The only one of them young enough to have grown up speaking molecular. Hell of a burden to place on a kid just out of school.
So be it. However disarrayed the sessions, they give Ressler the unique opportunity to pick the brains of experts in fields he has only rudimentary exposure to. The first four weeks of group barn-burning remain theoretical. Experimental progress must wait for the recent flurry of development to clear. The same thing that makes the coding problem the most exciting project going also makes it the most opaque. Theory permits a bewildering array of possible codes, while DNA sequence data provide no hint of regularity of pattern. This proliferation of too many possibilities gives Ressler hope that Cyfer has as much chance as any to receive the capricious break that will catapult them to the fore. The twist, always unanticipated, like the arrival of a startling bird one morning at the feeder outside the breakfast window, may pay its fragile visit at any moment. Ressler posts, by his office window, Delbruck’s words: “It seems to me that Genetics is definitely loosening up and maybe we will live to see the day when we know something about inheritance …”.
On an obnoxiously hot August day that melts the streets of Stadium Terrace into La Brea tar, Ressler takes time out to do a rudimentary milk run. He hits the futuristic supermarket with no shopping list except necessity. Pushing a cart with one oscillating wheel, he genuflects in aisle four toward Battle Creek, Michigan, for making survival possible. The daily cereal, consumed each evening over journals, if failing to carry him inexorably toward athleticism, has at least kept him from scurvy. Likewise, frozen juice concentrate takes one fifth the space of a mixed pitcher and requires no maintenance aside from rinsing the spoon. He ignores the taste, even enjoys it. Processed foods write the species’ insatiable advance in miniature: freed from the overhead of care to get on with the real matter.
He chooses a meal that promises “Ready in One Minute”, figuring he can eat it in two. Thus recovering four hours a week for his own pursuit, he swings his cart leisurely around the corner smack into none other than Toveh Botkin. The elderly Western war prize, whose protein chemistry work Ressler has studied, keeps cool in the mangle of metal. “I understand that the auto accident is a national obsession with Americans, Dr. Ressler. But don’t you think this a bit extreme?” He grins and waves the curlered housewife traffic around the wreck. The two empiricists step forward to inspect the damages. The fronts of both carts are mauled. “Are you insured?” she asks.
Together they restore a pyramid of soap boxes their wreck has upended. “How wonderful!” Botkin exclaims, holding one up for Ressler to see. A green explosion on the soap box advertises the obligatory miracle ingredient, Delta-X Sub-2, dirt-bursting enzyme. “Here our little group racks its brains to get enzymes out of nucleic acids, while the rest of the world is busy figuring out how to get them into laundry powder.”
They dust themselves off, shift effortlessly into a notes session. They compare the relative merits of direct templating of protein chains on the surface of the split DNA string to some form of intermediating sequence reader. The conversation breaks off when Botkin catches sight of the contents of Ressler’s cart. “My young friend. Convenience taken to its logical extreme is cowardice.” She looks personally wounded. “If the universe were as convenience-minded as you, it would never have proposed so inefficient an aggregate as life.”
Ressler loves this woman’s speech. Worth the dressing-down to hear her perform. “Dr. Botkin,” he counters. “It’s impossible to cook for one.”
“Nonsense. I’ve cooked for one for half a century, occasional dinner party aside. But if it is the motivation of pair bonding you need …”. She hooks a passing young thing in white anklets and coos at her, “My dear. Would you love, honor, and obey this decent-looking young man so that he can get a reasonable meal in the evenings?”
The girl giggles. “I’m already married.”
“Do you expect your husband to live very long?” At length, Ressler makes a few dietary concessions, the most important being his agreement to dine with her at least once a week. “I will introduce you to the clarity of thinking brought on by baked lamb, and you can bring me up to date on molecular mechanisms. I think I understand the part about the tall pea plants and the short, but beyond that …?” Botkin shrugs, reverence for the engine of skepticism. They arrive at the checkout behind a woman giving herself whiplash by watching the bagging and the register at the same time. What a very strange place he has been set down in, this world. He ought to get out more often.
Botkin, whatever her gifts as a conversationist, is almost as old as the rediscovery of Mendel. The other extreme in age, Joe Lovering, beat a time-honored path out of pure math into muddy population statistics. Ressler has seen the guy potting about in the lab, although exactly what the excitable kid does is anybody’s guess. He looks decidedly gumfooted holding any equipment more corporeal than a chi-square. Stuart takes him to the Y for lunch, part of a court-your-resources campaign. He has the sub, Lovering the congealed mac and cheese. Hardly are they seated when Joe whips out a napkin and begins sketching proofs. He argues that the genetic code, as an algorithmic formal system, is subject to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. “That would mean the symbolic language of the code can’t be both consistent and complete. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the head?”
Kid talk, competitive showing off, intellectual fantasy. But Ressler knows what Joe is driving at. He’s toyed with similar ideas, cast in less abstruse terms. We are the by-product of the mechanism in there. So it must be more ingenious than us. Anything complex enough to create consciousness may be too complex for consciousness to understand. Yet the ultimate paradox is Lovering, crouched over his table napkin, using proofs to demonstrate proof’s limits. Lovering laughs off recursion and takes up another tack: the key is to find some formal symmetry folded in this four-base chaos. Stuart distrusts this approach even more. He picks up the tab for their two untouched lunches, thanking Lovering politely for the insight.
In mid-month, a departmental review committee spot-checks the lab, sit
s through a free-association session where Lovering shows the group that the translation scheme under consideration can’t map sequences of four linear bases into twenty amino acids and still indicate where a gene message starts and breaks off. Since the last few weeks have been devoted exclusively to this scheme, Cyfer disbands that afternoon knowing less than it did a month ago. The review panel is sympathetic to the need for experimental interludes. Fact-gathering without theoretic guidance is mere noise. But theory without fact, the review suggests, is not science. Incriminatingly large amounts of glassware in the lab carry that See-Yourself Shine. They urge Ulrich to produce some activity, reduce the Blue Skies, begin investigating something.
So in midsummer, a dozen weeks into his tenure, Ressler volunteers to help set up a showpiece, tracing the incorporation of traits through daughter cells. He’ll use the elegant Hershey-Chase trick of radioactively labeling microorganisms to study how certain tagged strings are passed to the next generation. His first chance to do hard science since hitting the I-states.
Ressler devises a variant on the now notorious Waring Blendor technique to test the supposition that DNA information is transcribed and read like a linear tape. But the day he goes in to set up the growth cultures for his first run is a bad one for experiment. He smells aggression in the lab air, walks into the middle of a fight. He looks around but sees nothing departing from the status quo. Ulrich and Lovering are by the basins, the only two people in the room. Their conversation is subdued, their postures unthreatening. Ressler heads to his work area, lights a burner, and begins rudimentary sterilization.
Soon, however, Ulrich’s and Lovering’s raised voices filter into the public domain. Their words are lost in the flare of his gas jet. He assumes that the two are hashing out a labor dispute, currently in vogue. The McClellan committee investigates Beck, Brewster, and Hoffa, and suddenly everyone puts away his Monopoly set and joins the Mine Workers. It’s demeaning for a scientist to argue over cash; Ressler has always solved budget problems by spending Saturday nights in the lab instead of at Murphy’s—exactly the sort of chump that management loves to have in the rank and file.
A few escaping words and Ressler hears that matters are actually reversed. Joe is being called on the carpet, or the linoleum in this case. “You are forcing me to practice black magic, Dr. Ulrich. Pure popular hysteria plain and simple.”
“Black magic? That’s what you call a century of cumulative research, Dr. Lovering? Maybe you’d better give us your definition of science.”
“What in the hell does Salk have to do with science?” Ressler shuts off the Bunsen. This one’s a to-the-canvas brawl.
“Salk is the most systematic mind in today’s laboratories. If we had half his thoroughness, we’d have the code out by now.”
“Salk’s a technician. An administrator. ‘Thoroughness is a euphemism.”
Ressler strains to see without attracting notice. But he can’t catch either man’s face from where he stands, and he can’t move without getting drawn into the fray.
“You’re suggesting that science is only science provided it never turns up anything practical? That’s not especially rational, is it, Dr. Lovering?”
Ulrich infuses “rational” with so much hiss that Ressler slips and contaminates a petri. He looks around the lab to see who else is in calling distance. Botkin’s in her office down the hall, but an old woman wouldn’t be much help in pulling bucks off each other. Lovering looks about to bolt from his corner and tackle his adversary. “This is a witch hunt. You’ve singled me out because of my politics.”
“I’m doing no such thing. You’ve singled yourself out, by refusing to take a proven vaccine.”
“Proven my ass. Read the field trials. Where are the controls? Polio reduction in heavily dosed areas; so what? The disease moves in epidemics. It’s erratic by definition.”
Ulrich becomes cool, compensatory to his junior’s frenzy. “Joe, you’re the only one in this lab who refused the vaccine.”
“You want me to take the doses and cross myself like everybody else? What’s the paranoia? You’ve had your three slugs; I can’t hurt you.”
“You can hurt me plenty. If word got out that a scientist refused readily available precautions this late, when we’re finally moving towards eradication …”.
“Oh! So funding is the issue. That’s not especially rational, is it, Dr. Ulrich?”
Ressler can’t believe this: the kid spits out words that could cost him everything. And the old man lets him. Ulrich grows gentler than Ressler has ever seen him. “Joseph,” he says, almost singing, “just tell me why you refuse it.”
A look comes over Lovering’s face: able to rationalize forever, when asked outright, he will not misrepresent. “Because my mother’s a Christian Scientist. That’s why.” Lovering dashes from the lab, leaving Ulrich to nurse his victory. Ressler returns to experimental prep, but his heart is no longer in it. He lays out the first trial and organizes the notebook. Then he knocks off for the day. The lab is suddenly infected with labeled belief. The charm has temporarily fled the whole inheritance question.
Back at the barracks, with nothing to protect him from night’s humidity except his lawn chair and tomato juice, Ressler involuntarily recalls a painful joke he himself helped propagate in grad school days: A Jew, a Catholic, and a Christian Scientist sit in the anteroom to Hell. The Catholic turns to the Jew and asks, “Why are you here?” The Jew replies, “Well, God help me, but I couldn’t keep from nibbling ham now and then. Why are you here?” The Catholic answers, “I had a little trouble touching myself where I go to the bathroom.” The two of them turn to the Christian Scientist. “And you? Why are you here?” The Christian Scientist replies firmly, “I’m not.”
The joke incriminates him. Hypocrite: how did he fail to see in himself the same persuasion, the old blessed are those who have not seen?
VI
COOK’S TOUR
On August 20 I committed myself to leaving, putting together a portfolio of the day’s restlessness. I began my travelogue in 1597: Dutch East India Company ships return to Europe with word of a remarkable voyage. Germ cell of the modern world, its commerce craze, engine of expansion. I added Bering’s arrival in Alaska in 1741, precisely the moment—bizarre anachronism—when Bach unravels his Goldbergs. Another 173 years later, the Panama Canal’s first week of business opens a short cut between worlds. The day of exploration seemed a cornucopia expressly for my use.
In fact, the date was nothing special. On any calendar page, exploration rolls out anniversaries on demand: take every location on the globe that produced a recorded first encounter and divide by 365. Each day approximates what it means to need to be forever someplace other than here. Faces pressed to the glass of cabs, a summer freight’s lapsed, transfigured blast, autumn attic-rattling, the furious slam of screens in back-door disappearance. Departure was easy, commonplace, everyday.
I’d signed on for the full ride. August 20, after my shift was done and the foreign legion was just punching in, I showed up on the doorstep of the converted warehouse and buzzed to be let in: I’d discovered no more about Dr. Ressler in the interim. Harder to prove a thing’s absence than its existence. But in the run of time, the evidence adds up. His work had clearly come to nothing. He had produced nothing of consequence that had entered the permanent record, at least the record I wasted weeks sifting.
His non-work began to infect mine. Life science made raids on events of the day, colored my choice of quotes. He and self-appointed sidekick Todd used my Question Board to settle running disputes—everything from that calculation about the degree of our isolation in deep space to “How far did Goebbels get with Katherine Anne Porter when they dated in the thirties?” They used the forum to communicate with each other, with me, and with a public that never wrote them, put it to work for everything from Todd’s private joke about making the catch to Ressler’s request for the name, lost to one of the rare failings of his memory, of the tendency of lang
uages to become simpler—to drop inflectional cases and consolidate. I proudly produced, without revealing my footwork: A: Syncretism. The board became their private tin-can telephone, although I never saw Ressler inside the branch. He must have been by regularly, but either he calculated his visits to avoid my shift or he perfected invisibility in public.
As I learned his story, I continued to steal his quotes for my own use. Even as we set in motion our own small act of code-breaking, I posted extracts from that Poe story, the one that marked for him the bewildering human propensity for metaphor. “Circumstances and a certain bias of mind,”—says the cryptographer of “The Gold Bug”, a coded persona of his inventor—“have led me to take interest in such riddles, and it may well be doubted whether human ingenuity can construct an enigma of the kind that human ingenuity may not, by proper application, resolve.” I posted this on August 21, the day after meeting Dr. Ressler for real. Although we had exchanged only a few paragraphs, my head still spun on his long, periodic sentences, the sense underneath.
I told Tuckwell I was going out that evening with a couple of friends who were in town. The old rot about half-truth being better than whole lies. Keith was so relieved at not having to throw our apartment open to a night of reminiscence that he didn’t even ask who the friends were. He gave me a blank check for the evening. I had the warehouse address and a standing invitation. I needed only walk a few streets from the branch and satisfy my curiosity, answer my questions for once. The nondescript reddish-brown building was flanked by two sooty, brick, cliff walls, gullies where sunlight would not shine again until all buildings fell. It was fronted on the alley side by loading docks. On the street, story-length stone-trimmed windows filled with uncooperative darkness. From the outside, it was one of those mildewed, permanently For Let places, countless late-nineteenth-century brick rectangles that I no longer noticed after my second day in the city. I thought: They’ve lost the deed to this place. No one owns it. A forgotten tract squeezed between forgotten tracts, stuffed floor to ceiling with wooden files from a hundred years ago, papers slowly ammoniating. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In bland buildings with concrete cornices, everything is decided.
The Gold Bug Variations Page 12
