February 28, 1967

Miss Ruth Adams

Co-Editor

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
935 East 60th Street

Chiaago, Illinois 60637

Dear Miss Adams:

Dr. Ornstein hes very articulately expressed the anxieties of the movement
for genetic improvement. JI understand them, but if I no longer share the
intensity of his reaction, it is because I set 100 years, not 10,000, as
the maximum scale of short-run concerns in human biology. Within that time
we will have experienced.$o many revolutions in selentific insight that our
present concerns will seem totally irrelevant. For example, until we fully
understand the pathogenedis and population dynamics of diabetes, I would
hesitate to invoke any socially stressful policy to deal with it as a eugenic
rather than a medical problem. I would simply urge that we concentrate our
efforts on getting more scientific information about this disease, and why
the genes for it are to prevalent. When we can be reasonably certain about the
ultimate values, and not before, is time enough to consider trying to manage
other people's reproductive habits.

I do agree that the mutational load is a fundamental biologicel ppoblem for
the species. While our scientific and technical resources for dealing with
this are growing very rapidly (witness protein biochemistry), it is hard to
disagree with Dr. Ornstein’s prescriptions for pursuins conservative aims
of maintaining the status quo “provided the individual and social costs are
not excessive. I am concerned that opening the door to "rational” control
of differential reproduction will let in administratively easier criteria
like skin color or educational achBievement tests, with insufficient under-
standing of the complexities of human development.

Sincerely yours,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics

P.S. If I may also comment on my own article, I may have been too conserva-
tive about algeny as discussed in a reeent annotation: (see next pace)

Pguaas Wagueut '— 1-9-47 Maclean te Sep

CF sam 26