UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROGRAM

Interview #316
MILLER, JAMES A. and ELIZABETH CAVERT

MILLER, ELIZABETH (1920-1987)
WARF Senior Distinguished Professor of Oncology, McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research
At UW: as graduate student (1941-1945); as professor (1945-1987)
MILLER, JAMES A. (1915-2000)
Van Rensselaer Potter Professor of Oncology, McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research
At UW: as graduate student (1939-1943); as professor (1944-2000)

Interviewed: 	1985 (1 session)
Interviewer: 	Laura Smail
Index by: 	Stephen A. Pierce
Length: 	7 hours, 40 minutes
Series: 	Campus Voices
		Women in Science and Engineering

Abstract: In their November 1985 interview with Laura Smail, Elizabeth “Betty” and James Miller reminisce about their over fourty years of ground-breaking research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research from the 1940s to the 1980s. Both Betty and James recount briefly what attracted them initially to science, where they received their undergraduate training and how they met and collaborated in the biochemistry department at UW. They offer their perspectives on major personalities in biochemistry and at McArdle and outlined the major advances their research had made possible. Further, Betty talks about changes in the climate for women on UW’s campus from the 1940s to today.  This interview was conducted for inclusion into the UW-Madison Oral History Program.

Key Words: Pittsburgh; the Depression; Charles King; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Max Schultze; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF); biochemistry; University of Minnesota; home economics; Carl Baumann; Harry Steenbock; Harold Rusch; Karl Paul Link; Conrad Elvehjem; Enzyme Institute; McArdle Laboratories; aminoazo dyes; carcinogens and cancer research; Henry Pitot.

First Interview Session (November 11, 1985): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	[begin tape 1, side 1] Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:26	Question: What influenced you as a child? Answer: James Miller (JM) was born the fifth boy of a family of six in Pittsburgh in 1915, but he was the only sibling to become interested in science. He related his awareness of contemporary scientific developments.

00:02:28	[no question] JM discussed the effect of four deaths in his family in a span of six years—his brother and aunt to pneumonia, a second brother in a tragic automobile accident, and his mother of cerebral hemorrhage. Because JM’s parents were of different faiths, he’d “got into religion very early,” but these deaths shook his faith, eventually caused him to renounce Catholicism, and made him turn to science to reach some truth.

00:07:44	[no question] Another source of JM’s desire to get into science was a very good HS teacher—Mr. Dickerhoff—though his graduation in the Depression made it difficult to go to college. He discussed his desire to go to college.

00:09:43	[no question] JM relates his work experiences in the Depression—he was able to get a welding job in a Pittsburgh-area steel mill for six months, to take night-school classes, and to work for the National Youth Administration (NYA). Proceeds from this job allowed him to start college classes in chemistry at Univ. of Pittsburgh (Pitt).

00:11:35	[no question] JM described working for 3 of his undergraduate years for Charles King, a biochemistry professor at Pitt who’d been the first to crystallize vitamin C. He related King’s funding sources and hiring 3 postdocs, one of whom was from UW. He quipped that this postdoc’s (Max Schultze) story was more interesting than his, narrating his emigration to the US and education. 

00:16:25	[no question] JM explained the importance of Schultze to him, since he connected him to WARF scholarships at UW. JM had realized after HS that he needed to get better grades in order to get scholarships; he did so at Pitt and got a WARF scholarship in 1939.

00:18:35	Question: What was your story, Elizabeth? Answer: Elizabeth Miller (EM) added that JM’s family had been very supportive of him after the family nearly fell apart after his mother’s death. JM explained living with his brothers during college at Pitt.

00:20:52	[no question] EM talked about her more fortunate background. Her father graduated from Union College and Cornell University and worked for the University of MN (UMN); and her mother graduated from Vassar. Both her parents were active in community affairs and expected good grades from their children.

00:23:38	[no question] EM discussed the beginnings of her science education in Anoka MN. She talked about a science teacher, Mr. Waters, who influenced her to want to be a chemical engineer. Since a UMN faculty thought EM shouldn’t go into chemical engineering as a girl, he suggested biochemistry.

00:26:55	Question: Did you think of having a career? Answer: Yes; he related the encouragement she got from her father’s UMN contacts. Question: Did you consider other schools? Answer: No, she thought financial need factored into the decision. Question: Did you have to work? Answer: No, there weren’t a lot of opportunities during the Depression.

00:29:19	[end side 1; begin side 2] EM talks about her years as a student at UMN, where most of her female friends were home economists. Follow up: Did you settle into a field? Answer: She said the curriculum was pretty well set in biochemistry. EM and JM compared their undergraduate science curricula and people they knew in their respective institutions.

00:33:03	[no question] EM talked about why she chose to go to graduate school. She realized early on that if one was going to research in biochemistry, one had to have a graduate degree. She was accepted to Columbia, Univ. of Iowa, and UW (where like JM she’d been offered a WARF fellowship). She talked about her interview process.

00:34:45	[no question] EM related that the problem with the WARF fellowship was that she was a woman, which made the biochemistry faculty worry that they wouldn’t be able to place her after graduation. The solution was that she double-majored in home economics (perceived as “the right field for a woman”) and biochemistry. With some misgivings, EM came to UW, but found Personius and Johnson remarkable teachers. She described her research her first year (tensile strength of bread) and moving at JM’s suggestion into Carl Baumann’s lab in her second year.

00:39:50	[no question] JM recalled being Carl Baumann’s graduate student when he came in 1939. Baumann was then working with Dr. Rusch, though he had started in Harry Steenbock’s group. He discussed Rasch’s and Baumann’s research. Question: You said this was the only “safe” place? Answer: Yes; Link’s and Elvehjem’s labs were full, and he was glad he didn’t have to work with Steenbock. He remembered using EM’s advisor Dr. Gortner’s textbook in undergrad and the kind of research he was doing for Baumann.

00:46:20	Question: What kind of teacher was Baumann? Answer: JM described Baumann’s management style—he gave his student’s a lot of leeway and senior PhD candidates helped mentor JM. Question: Was it daunting? Answer: He remembered feeling out of sorts the first semester, less comfortable than he’d been at Pitt. 

00:49:00	Question: Talk about courses. Answer: JM noted that in his second year, he was made a TA for Baumann, which increased his salary markedly. Follow up: Because you stood out? Answer: He guessed so, but thought they just needed a TA. EM added that she had TAed the same course, and thought the position was supposed to be filled by someone who’d worked with Steenbock.

00:51:44	[no question] EM and JM quipped about Steenbock reading the Wall Street Journal and calling his stock broker during the day, having recently gotten his patent. They went on to tell anecdotes about Steenbock’s teaching, seminars, intimidating presence, monologues (“on anything”).

00:56:35	[no question] Continuing to talk about Harry Steenbock, JM talked about parties he used to throw, citing an example of Steenbock taking the grad students out on his new motor boat. EM then told a story of Steenbock reprimanding her for using his equipment, [end tape 1; begin tape 2] but observed that her dealings with him were pleasant on the whole.

00:59:14	[no question] JM reminisced about his first time coming to UW. Though he already knew about some of these big names, he said Karl Paul Link greeted him that first day clad only in shorts. Follow up: What about Link as a teacher? Answer: JM thought he was a refreshing teacher, completely different from Steenbock (though EM wasn’t impressed with either one’s teaching). In fact, he discovered that Steenbock and Link didn’t like each other, recounting an argument between them over a graduate student that he had witnessed. Steenbock later asked that Link be censured for the encounter. He also remembered an argument between Link and Elvehjem. 

01:06:40	[no question] EM and JM offered their opinions on other personalities’ teaching—Carl Baumann, Marvin Johnson and Conrad Elvehjem, who EM thought was too busy to concentrate on teaching. While their lecturing wasn’t excellent, they noted, their students and their research were of good quality—this was a way in which chemistry was different from some of the humanities, they thought.

01:10:02	[no question] Another critical teaching tool they talked about was Journal Club, in which grad students would present newly published articles and professors would point out flaws in research and reasoning. This would help them learn how to write up their work in a certain way. They said Baumann was an especially effective teacher/ advisor in this regard. JM talked about the demands of presenting papers at national meetings—also an educational experience.

01:14:57	Question: Was the department plateauing in the 1940s? Answer: No. Under Hart and Elvehjem, the dept continued to be cutting edge.  JM described their research on vitamins, intestinal synthesis, and the enzymatic composition of cells. In nutrition, added EM, the department had witnessed a burst of activity in the 30s and had plateaued a little in the 40s. They debated to what extent the cutting edge work of the 1940s was happening in the biochemistry department. JM also discussed Elvehjem’s research in vitamin B1 (thiamin) and minerals.

01:22:36	Question: They were getting new equipment in the 1940s? Answer: They thought this became more important with the need for colorimeters of the 1930s. Question: Did you have anything to do with the Enzyme Institute? Answer: No; he thought one of the reasons for the existence of the Institute was to figure out how these vitamins worked.

01:25:31	Question: You were pretty separated from biochemistry when you came to McArdle? Answer: Yes; they kept up contact with Baumann, but he wasn’t as interested in the carcinogens that Miller worked with at McArdle.

01:27:19	Question: How did you get into McArdle, Betty? Answer: EM said that while she was working for Baumann in biochemistry, she worked on a problem (aminoazo dyes and liver tumors) that overlapped some of the work being done in McArdle, so she started working in McArdle. Follow up: Were you relieved to get out of home ec? Answer: She had mixed feelings, since she appreciated the faculty there but was more interested in biochemistry. She then discusses her master’s research (effects of pyridoxine and tryptophan) and beginning to work on aminoazo dyes.

01:32:17	[no question] EM and JM talk about how JM came to McArdle to work with Dr. Rusch after doing a one-year postdoc in biochemistry. JM expressed his delight at being invited to move over to McArdle, since it deferred his military service. Follow up: There was no question of going to Cold Spring Harbor or elsewhere? Answer: No; it was common to go abroad, JM said, citing examples, but he and EM had married and he didn’t entertain it because carcinogenesis wasn’t commonly studied elsewhere.

01:36:14	[no question] JM relates the beginnings of McArdle with Rusch and Van Potter and himself. Baumann worked partly there as well, but the Millers took over the work he’d rather be doing than his replacement of Steenbock’s teaching position, which had less postdocs than graduate students. They talked about the original home of the lab, which was originally intended as a home for radiology and then a heart institute—something of a problem as all split space tends to be. JM told some anecdotes about first going to visit McArdle, explaining how they met Rusch and got the job.

01:44:09	[no question] EM and JM returned to talking about why there were few other places JM could go for a postdoc—McArdle was one of few places working on chemical carcinogens. Follow up: How did Baumann get into it? Answer: JM noted that Rusch had needed a biochemist to help him with the research. Baumann had noted the dietary factors of the problem, while JM, with a more solid organic chemistry background, wanted to study variants of aminoazo dyes. Though initially resistant, Baumann became interested when it was clear that the dyes were susceptible to dietary factors. They went on to describe the research—interesting factors and how long cycles took.

01:55:41	Question: Talk about your collaboration. Answer: JM observed that EM was more biologically competent, and he was more chemically competent. EM outlined how Rusch invited her to McArdle on a postdoc since she had already been trained in the field. She had never regretted not having her own lab, saying the research and writing was totally collaborative, dividing up the responsibilities evenly.

02:00:22	Follow up: Are there times when it’s difficult to decide which direction to take the research in? Answer: EM suggested that these kinds of decisions were always necessary as different unexpected avenues of investigation arose and tools changed. JM added that careful planning was important, since experiments took months to complete, but that some of the most important discoveries were unplanned.

02:03:44	[no question] JM recalled the small group of people contributing to the field in the 1940s. Since then, they said, the literature on cancer research has exploded—especially since it is interdisciplinary—to the point that it’s difficult to keep up with the literature. He explained how researchers in the late 1980s kept up with current literature.

02:06:59	Question: How much interaction is there between members of McArdle? Answer: EM felt fortunate that McArdle had stayed quite close as a dept. After an initial period when impromptu meetings were easy, they’d set up regular staff meetings to maintain staff connections and give regular research reports.

02:10:04	Question: How closely connected are you? Answer: EM and JM talked about the three research groups at McArdle—chemical carcinogenesis, tumor biology, and tumor virology. They talked about the value of general meetings as well as group meetings for the benefit of grad students, though numerous meetings could be burdensome.

02:13:39	Question: Did you deal with Biochemistry or Moleculary Biology depts? Answer: Not generally. They talked about people with whom they’d had sporadic collaboration they’d had over the years—Strong, Jefcoate, Cohen, Hartmann, Harmon.

02:16:26	[no question] Responding to a question about whether they feel isolated, EM discussed advantages and disadvantages to not being a teaching department. JM regarded work with graduate students as their main teaching function—McArdle started a course in oncology in 1948, had 50+ grad students, and JM taught in a toxicology course.

02:20:23	Question: Do you suffer from the low level of Med School research? Answer: EM said it could be a difficulty, but McArdle staff were much more connected to the strong medical genetics and biochemistry departments. JM then recounted the decision to have McArdle offer their own degree (starting 1948).

02:23:44	Question: Talk about Charles Heidelberger. Answer: JM described him as “aggressive” but that this was a small price to pay for a top-notch researcher. Follow up: Have you been able to recruit people you wanted? Answer: EM talked about their ability to offer competitive salaries, the stability of the dept, several faculty who’d left, McArdle’s comparability to other national cancer institutes, and the issue of funding.

02:28:43	Question: Why did you [EM] become assoc. director? Answer: When Rusch started a clinical institute, McArdle staff felt they needed to maintain a separate identity and appointed Henry Pitot as director. But since Pitot was dean at the same time and grant applications were proliferating, EM agreed to become associate. EM enjoyed administrative work, but sometimes wished she had more time for the lab.

02:31:39	[no question] They discussed changes in EM’s appointment, both with having a family and with administrative duties. Follow up: How did you feel about that? Answer: EM talked about JM’s supportiveness, the advantages of their collaborative research, and Rusch’s feeling that she should be working full-time. She felt fortunate to have had good help with the children, supposing it would be difficult for a woman with children to maintain a full-time academic job.

02:36:27	[no question] JM talked about their growing interest in the history of the field, noting that because of the fast pace of current research, grad students knew little about research done more than about five years ago. Older work was simply part of general knowledge (not attributed to a person, even if a prominent one). Thus, they’d published some reviews of their and other people’s work, suggesting that only when one knew the history did the field come alive.

02:40:28	Follow up: What were some of the major discoveries that affected you? Answer: Watson and Crick’s Nature paper on DNA was directly important to them, since in 1947 their first major discovery (how carcinogenic dyes bound to proteins in the liver) directly related to proteins that made up the basic cell structure. He reviewed in broad strokes the major discoveries in their research.

02:45:43	[no question] Continuing to talk about his and EM’s research, he talked about the major problem of trying to find something common to different carcinogens. After studying the metabolism of the carcinogens, they accidentally discovered a proximate carcinogen—an intermediate compound that leads to the reactive cancer-causing metabolite—which led them to realize that most carcinogens are activated in vivo. A second major discovery was an ultimate carcinogens.

02:53:37	[no question] JM talked about making one’s own lucky, by keeping one’s eyes and ears open and doing many things.

02:55:29	[no question] JM discussed the ability current molecular biology had to predict very accurately if something will be a carcinogen before you even test it, even testing things at the molecular, DNA, level. 

02:57:53	[no question] JM mused about the development of experimental science from the days of the Greeks and Chinese, who disdained getting their hands dirty to testing ideas with experiments beginning with Galileo to the fast-paced productivity of research in the 20th century. Coming full circle, he noted that this experimental approach was what drew him to science as a young man disenchanted with Catholicism.

03:02:26	Question: How important has it been that your research has pertained to the dread disease cancer? Answer: It had given it a certain urgency. He mused about how lifespans had changed from around 20 years in prehistory to around 70 years in the 1980s, recent developments in DNA research, and the possibility of preventing cancer in the future through lifestyle changes or understanding the chemistry of it.

03:08:21	End of First Interview Session

End of Oral History #316