lL? August 1972

Dr. Harvey Brooks
Division of Engineering
and Applied Physics

Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Dear Harvey:

I was interested to see the rather orthogonal interaction in the
August 4th Letters in Science. What I suspect you do not give enough
credit to is the intensity with which wholly irrational views of in-
equality are entertained by many people. I have a few parentheses on
this question in some of my attached writings (which I hope will provoke
some repiprocity) and I could also refer you to an entire book on "envy"
by Schoeck, which somewhat overplaya the point that envy is one of those
subjects studiously avoided in polite discourse. Nat Glazer, of course,
has also had a lot to say about the dilemmas of welfare and attempts to
meet claims for the redress of inequality as perceived by different
cultures.

Seeing this exchange reminded me, however, of the very preliminary
discussion we had during the meeting at Annual Reviews concerning the
possibilities of an “Annual Review of Science”. +I am particularly con-
cerned that we try to find some mechanism by which our thinking about
these general problems can be made more efficiently cumulative than it
often has been since so much time is now spent in going over issues
that have been well worked in previous eras. The fragmentation of the
literature on general questions of science is just one many sources of
this problem, but it may be one we can help do something about, for
example by a vehicle like the Annual Review of Science. What I have
in mind, and believe you were quite sympathetic to in our earlier dis-
cussion, was a recognized place for the systematic treatment of those
issues, both substantive and polemical, that had arisen during the
previous year. ("Year" should not be taken too literally).

I have some general thoughts on the kinds of issues that might be

included in such a review and I have outlined them in a first draft
as attached. However, I would put more emphasis on the general principle

i.

‘hel SVOGAIA
Dr. Brooks 2. 17 August 1972

that such a review should include perspectives on every aspect of non-
specialized scientific concern. That is, its subject matter should
range over the whole set of issues that are likely to be a common focus
of thought of all scientists, regardless of their special discipline.
This will include some of the content of scientific work, but I did not
have in mind semi-technical treatments like those so well covered by
Scientific American. Of course, there would necessarily be great
emphasis on the cultural and political aspects of science, its applica-
tions, and its support. I also had in mind that we not neglect the
methodology of acience (logic, philosophy), the problems of science as
a profession, and the ethical problems that are alleged to be an outcome
of the commitment of science to objective truth. I am sure you would
be able readily to improve on the general outline that I have attached
and I hope I can have some contribution from you in that direction.

If we, and perhaps a few others whom you might wish to help nomi-
nate, could put together a more coherent proposal, I would like to
bring it up at the next board meeting of Annual Reviews although for a
number of reasons I doubt that this is something that could be initiated
immeddiately. One of the questions that would surely atise is who
would be likely to accept the obligation of editing such a volume and
your name is bound to arise in such a connection. Before you are
frightened off by this, let me assure you, however, that in any such
possible enterprise I would be glad to offer a good deal of my own
energies and I am sure there are others who could be called upon as well.
Quite apart from that consideration, I hope you will give me the benefit
of your views about what ought to be included in such a prospectus and
then whether you think the whole enterprise is worth pursuing.

Yours sincerely,

a

Joshua Lederberg
Professor and Chairman
Department of Genetics

Encl