I believe that Donald Fleming
has quite misconstrued or at best
oversimplified my own position on
the subject he discusses.

I am indeed fascinated by em-
bryology, since so much of the bio-
chemical and physiological machin-
ery of the body is laid down during
fetal life. But I am equally fascinated
by the psychological and _ social
development of the child afterward.
I would take particular exception
to the phrase “maddened and ob-
sessed,’ unless it is answered that
my concern for healthy maternal
nutrition to sustain the fetus’ devel-
oping brain is an obsession. I think
the further phrase “such a waste of
time before the scientists can get at
us” is particularly offensive—if Mr.
Fleming wants to voice such an
opinion on his own account, that is
fine with me, but I hate to have
even an indirect attribution of such
language to myself appearing on the
record. I also have to stress that the
emphasis I have given to “euphen-
ics” is a counterslogan in reaction
to the zealous eugenicists. I pointed
out elsewhere that euphenics is in
fact nothing but. medicine.

Mr. Fleming has certainly mis-
understood me if he believes that I
advocate a program of action. I do
advocate that research that can en-

able us to achieve the human mas-
tery of nature that has been the
main thread of his cultural develop-
ment; and I advocate the widest
possible public education about
these opportunities precisely in or-
der to minimize the chance that
they will be dominated by mono-

‘lithic bureaucracy. For example, I

am quite opposed to “foolproof
compulsory contraception.” At the
same time, I join a great. many~ bi-
ologists and others in warning that
we must somehow achieve a humane
solution to the very pressing prob-
lem of world overpopulation and
underdevelopment.

As to organ replacements, I was
among the first to point out the dif-
ficulties that would arise in manag-
ing the potential “market” im or-
gans, and primarily for that reason,
pointed out the need to stress some
countertechnology in the direction
of artificial organs.

I do not see any prospect of gene
manipulation and _ substitution
along the lines specifically laid out
by Fleming, but I certainly do see
new possibilities of therapeutic re-
pair of those diseases about which
we achieve sufficient biochemical
understanding.

I do favor continued research on
human development, particularly on
the correlated questions of the de-
velopment of the brain and of in-
tellect, and there is no doubt that
such research will provide answers
to many tragic questions that plague
people today.

I am in accord with Mr. Fleming:

in his cautions that the opportun-
ities for more and more incisive in-
tervention may have cumulatively
insidious by-products, and that these
will be far the worse if we do not
broaden the base of public under-
standing of biology.

Finally, let me state one specific
program that I do advocate and a
theme to which I have returned
again and again in my columns.
The world’s most pressing problems
are the nutrition and education of
the young.

JosHua LEDERBERG
Professor of Genetics
Stanford University School of Medicine
Paio Alto, California

49