SCIENCE

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

OF POLITICAL

E53-421

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

DEPARTMENT

AL threrayn find hes
Ant TA Gprralleooen
racridnwped nee heole April 22, 1969
wtb d jar Are bolas. | pene,
Towa V8 Soe fhe pe Lods,
me
ey .
Bare ta La , °
Anka =
Professor Joshua Lederberg
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford Medical Center
94304

300 Pasteur Drive

7 Palo Alto, California
Dear Dr. Lederberg:
Enclosed is the reprint you requested.
I must comment on your Washington Post covumn
ou

1969, which I found disappointing.
You then fail to see that

  

dismissed my fluoridation hypothesis off handedly with-

i ssed
out considering the evidence.
does not support your interpretation of the conflict
between the liberty of the individual and the liberty

of the community which can be described as the conflict
between private regarding and public regarding attitudes.

 

of March 22,
all elections involve a potential suppression of a min-
Moreover, the literature in political science

ority.
Studies indicate that private regarding attitudes are
In the fluoridation controversy people would

most likely then be calculating their own advantages and’
disadvantages’ rather than those that accrue to the com-

dominant.
munity.
gas Sincerely,
Harvey M. Sapolsky
few issues that elicit technical
tion is typical of political decision-
whether votes Hares 9 lg yoo aad Fae,
: furl

 

 

I have to accept your criticism,
and would admit that I would have dealt
more comprehensively with your thesis

My interpretation of
there are also

ow

were there SthbuNK.
the "votes" is admittedly almost entirely
intuitive, and based on discussions I have
heard around Stanford. * However,
unanimity, so I am not sure that fluordda
Why not research the very point,
his particular : arena.
of Plea Oy oT eT 9 ae

or public- -regarding attitudes in this
el

Qs DE

making.

prt fo te
Be cergand ferygees mens Hamer