ED 050 955

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

fiE 011 241

Handler, PhilipCan Man Shape His Future?Agricultural Research Service (DOA), Washington, D.C.Apr 7137p.Superintendent of Documents, Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C.

EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29Developing Nations, Environmental Education,*Environmental Influences, *Natural Resources,Natural Sciences, *Population Trends, *SocialInfluences, Social Sciences, *Speeches, Technology

ABSTRACTThis document presents the 1970 W. 0. Atwater

Memorial Lecture, delivered at the Third International Congress ofFood Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., August, 1970.Elaborating on life a few centuries hence, using reasonably realisticprospects based on understanding already available, Handler contendsthat the dreams of a peaceful, future society are indeed feasible.His principal thesis is that, even now, science has provided thebasis of understanding necessary to fashion many elements of thissociety and that it will be fulfilled if mankind can survive thecrises of this century. Reviewing the nature of some of the crisesand the potential contributions of biological sciences to theirsolutions, he examines the problems of population, food supply,environmental quality, resource utilization, and world peace. Summarystatements indicate that biological and physical research can permitus to refashion ourselves and our world, and that if the dream fails,it will be because of the limitations of man the social creature, notthe elements of science. (BL)

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EDUCATION& WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACILY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR

ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF

VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NCCES

SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU

CATION POSITION OR POLICY

4

THE W. O. Atwater Memorial Lecture was establishedin 1967 by the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S.Department of Agriculture to honor the memory of agifted scientist . . . and to recognize accomplishment in a-field or discipline that relates to the problems of nutritionand feeding the hungry world.

Dr. Wilbur 0. Atwater (1844-1907) was a man of manytalents. He was a scientist, teacher, lecturer, research ad-ministrator, and writer . . . motivated always by a deepconcern for improving the welfare of people through betternutrition.

Dr. Atwater established the science of modern humannutrition in the United States, and directed the first na-tionwide program of nutrition research, centered in theDepartment of Agriculture. He was the first director ofAmerica's first agricultural experiment station at WesleyanUniversity, Middletown, Connecticut, and the first directorof the Federal Office of Experiment Stations.

Dr. Atwater's most basic contributions to nutritionstemmed from his studies on food metabolism. He per-fected, among other things, the first satisfactory calorimeterfor measuring the expenditure of human energy.

His early warnings about the dangers of overeating andlack of exercise, and the need for protein for mental andphysical health are being corroborated by scientistseverywhere.

Dr. Atwater wrote extensively to popularize scientificinformation and to arouse public interest in nutrition.

2

The 1970 W.O. AtwaterMemorial Lecture

presented in cooperation withThe Third International Congress

of Food Science and TechnologyWashington, D.C.

August 11,1970

Can ManShape HisFuture?by Dr. Philip Handler, President, National Academyof Sciences, Washington, D.C.

IT is a high privilege to give The 1970 W.O.AtwaterLecture, as it is to appear before so many distinguishedvisitors from outside our borders. On behalf of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, I bid you all welcome and extend ourhope that you find these days rewarding and enjoyable.

Authors of science fictirn have provided numerous ver-sions of life a few centuries hence. What are the reasonablyrealistic prospects, based on understanding already inhand? The pace of scientific and technological achievementhas so dramatically changed man's capabilities in the lastfew decades and brought so many surprises that any pro-jected vision will necessarily be less dramatic than the fu-ture reality.

Surely the world's population will have stabilized, al-though at what level is uncertain. The racial balance will

undoubtedly be rather different from that at present. Al-though Caucasians made up 20 percent of the world'spopulation in the 17th century, they now represent about40 percent of all people. But the trend has reversed, and themore heavily pigmented populations are increasing dis-proportionately. These gene pools will undoubtedly un-dergo more mixing than at present, but with what resultsfor the future of the species one cannot say.

The bulk of humanity will be gathered in megalopolises,dwelling in huge buildings surrounded by park lands,perhaps covered by domes within which the atmosphere ismaintained rather constant. Outside them, the fields areverdant, lakes and streams clear.

Power consumption per capita will be vastly greater eventhan in the United States today. The price per kilowattwill have been greatly reduced by the introduction ofthermonuclear plants capable of 1 million megawattsoutput or more, thanks to utilization of magnetohydro-dynamics and of superconductive materials both for thegeneration and transmission of power. Water will beabundant, thanks to efficient desalination made possible bythe cheap power; thermal pollution will have been replacedby a variety of uses of the heated effluents of these powerplants, such as desalination, domestic heating, and year-round agriculture.

Each individual will have a private, pocket, two-waytelevision instrument and immediate, personal access to acomputer serving as his news source, privately programmededucational medium, his memory, and personal commu-nicator with the world at 1,, rge, with his bank, broker,government agents, shopping services, etc.

Less than 5 percent of the working population will be

4

engaged in primary agriculture, with no more than another20 percent engaged in other primary productive activitiessuch as food processing, mineral extraction, construction,or manufacturing. The bulk of the labor force, then, willengage in activities currently classified as services ratherthan production of goods. The principal pursuits of man-kind will be cultural, recreational, or devoted to the ex-pansion of knowledge and understanding.

Most of the diseases that have been man's most ancientenemies will be matters of historic interest only, and eachindividual may look forward to about fourscore years ofvigorous, healthy, pain-free life before succumbing to theravages of old age.

If, indeed, humanity survives to see such a world, nec-essarily by then national aspirations will have been subli-mated to some form of world order; a single worldwidepolice force will maintain law and order, and the arsenal ofnuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and diverse counter-vailing measures will long since have been dismantled.

Embroider that image with such detail as you will, suchas the probable changes in the materials used for a widevariety of purposes, in the nature of distribution proce-dures, in educational mechanisms, in management of theenvironment, in conservation of the natural resources ofthe planet, in modes of short- and long-haul transportation,in the uses of outer space and of the oceans, in the socialstructure of the familyif families there be, and in the useof mood-altering drugs. For all that vision of a brave newworld, the most dramatic developments simply cannot beanticipated.

Most of us hold such a dream in common, differing onlyin detail and the color of our imaginations. The most

5

important thing one can say about that dream is that itmay well be feasible. My principal thesis is that, even now,science has provided the basis in understanding necessaryto fashion many elements of the dream; and it will befulfilled if mankind can survive the crises of this century.Allow me to review the nature of some of these crises andthe potential contributions of biological science to theirsolutions.

Foremost among them is the need to secure a stableworld peace. And I find it a matter of deep regret that sofew of the technical community, so few students, are ad-dressing themse;ves to this problem, that the disturbedgeneration is not deeply disturbed by the world's ever-growing nuclear arsenal.

But my subject is really the second problemwhich canbe teased apart into the fragments identified as population,food supply, environmental quality, and resource utiliza-tionbut which is really one major problem.

CONCERN for population is scarcely novel. In his"Politics," Aristotle warned that, ". . . neglect of aneffective birth-control policy is a never-failing source ofpoverty which in turn is the parent of revolution andcrime." Hence, he advocated that parents with too manychildren practice abortion. But he went unheeded throughthe following centuries as the Romansand their successorsto this timeencouraged large families to man their far-flung armies, the Judeo-Christian ethic considered childrenas gifts of God, and St. Augustine averred that the purposeof marriage is procreation, a view unmodified even by theReformation. Yet before St. Augustine, Tertullian had

6

stated that, "Scourges, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, andwars are to be regarded as blessings to crowded nations,since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of thehuman race."

From time to time, other advocates of population controlappeared, most notably Malthus, who stated that popula-tions would always rise to the limits made possible by foodproduction so that, necessarily, there must always be hun-ger and poverty. Ironically, Malthus rested his case on thehistory of the United States in the 18th century. Unfor-tunately, his teaching was rejected by both the Christianethic and by Marxism, which taught that overpopulation isa capitalist notion invented to justify the poverty ofworking-class peoples, rectifiable by enhanced productionand improved distribution rather than by birth control.

Opponents of measures to effect population control arguethat, given the time and effort required to increase allforms of agricultural productivity sufficiently, earth cansustain a population vastly larger than that at present innutritional abundance. Undoubtedly this is the case. Wedo not now face the global crisis Malthus predicted, norshall we, although we most certainly will in some specificlocales. Since about 1950, worldwide agricultural produc-tivity has grown by about 3 percent annually, while pop-ulation increase has averaged just under 2 percent. Ifworldwide per capita food consumption had remainedconstant at 1955 levels, despite the population increase, by1975 there would have been a world surplus of 40 milliontons of wheat and 75 million tons of rice. This will notoccur because of both rising per capita food consumptionand the controlled agricultural productivity practiced invarying degree and kind in the United States, Australia,

7

New Zealand, Canada, and the Argentine.Meanwhile, however, some developing nations, caught

up in the worldwide revolution of rising .1..xpectations, findthemselves short of both food and capital for development.The specter of famine may have beers averted in the Phil-ippines, Pakistan, Mexico, and parts of India as a conse-quence of the much-publicized "Green Revolution" and, beit admitted, several consecutive years of favorable mon-soons. But that specter remains in other areas of the world,and it is difficult to see how some will avoid wholesalefamine in the coming two decades without large-scale helpfrom the major agricultural producers. Thereafter, knowntechnology could so expand food production as to avoidworld food problems almost indefinitely. But, meanwhile,malnutrition is desperately serious in some tropical andsemitropical countries. Around the globe it remains aleading cause of death and disability.

The combination of new strains and application of fer-tilizer that has so remarkably increased crop yields in Eu-rope, Japan, and the United States has now been demon-strated to work in several developing nations. For $35billion per yearor $10 per capita worldwideout of aGross World Product of $3,000 billion, global food prod-uction could rise by the equivalent of the basic produc-tivity of 1.7 billion acres of average tillable land, thusproviding a 50-percent increase in available food per capitaworldwide.

Moreover, it has been calculated that if all the land nowin tillage were managed as in Holland, the world couldsupport 60 billion people on a typical Dutch diet; ifmanaged as in Japan, it could support 90 billion people ona typical Japanese diet. And all of this is apart from the

8

realizable expectations we all hold for the next agricul-tural or, more accurately, food revolution based on im-proved control of agriculture, on culture of food yeast orother microorganisms, and on synthetic nutrients. Approxi-mately 1 acre is required to feed one man by efficient currentagriculture, yet a 1- square -yard tank growing algae canproduce all of his caloric, protein, and vitamin needs. Ifthat product were used to feed chickens, hogs, or cattle, 10square yards would suffice for a man, woman, or child. Allof which is to state that measures to upgrade agriculturalpractice in the developing nations could forestall a Mal-thusian crisis for at least a half century, even at currentrates of population growth, and perhaps indefinitely.

But with what consequences?Surely the fact that it might be possible to feed such

huge populations does not justify a policy of uncontrolledpopulation growth, although the most frequently employedolder argument for population control rested on the Mal-thusian approach. But it need not, and probably will not,be the food supply that limits our future populations or thequality of our civilization. The most cogent argument forpopulation control is that if, as now estimated, worldpopulation will approximately double by the turn of thecentury, and if it were possible to raise the standard ofliving for all of that population so that it would becomecomparable to that of the average American citizen oftoday, the drain on the world supply of natural resourceswould then be 70 times that in 1950, and the drain on thebiosphere would be about 6 to 8 times that of today. Ourplanet, our environment, could not conceivably tolerate acontinuing insult of that magnitude.

Whatever the biologically maximum possible population

,9

10 t:

might be, it is patently very much larger than at present,very much larger than that which most of us might consi-der to be optimal. Even a 1-percent growth rate, with adoubling time of 70 years, will soon be unacceptable, elseall of mankind must, undoubtedly, accept living standardsinferior to those some of us already know.

Patently, even our present numbers suffice to populatethe planet with the diversified human talent required tocontribute to progress on all human frontsscience, thearts, industry, government, etc. Meanwhile, many of themost tragic ills of human existence find their origin inpopulation growth. Hunger, pollution, crime, despoliationof the natural beauty of the planet, extermination ofcountless species of plants and animals, overlarge, dirty,overcrowded cities with their paradoxical loneliness, con-tinual erosion of limited natural resources, and the seeth-ing unrest which engenders the political instabilitywhich leads to international conflict and warsall derivefrom the unbridled growth of human populations. If hu-manity is ever to realize its potential, if life in that futureworld is to be worth living, population growth must bechecked.

Granted that several Western nations have suibilized theirpopulations by a variety of means, nothing could so muchadvance this cause as a totally reliable, reversible, safe, verycheap contraceptive device or procedure, preferably suchthat error or carelessness would result in failure of con-ception, rather than the reverse. No such procedure ispresently available, and this major challenge to students ofreproductive physiology is now being explored vigorously.

While we await that means, available procedures arequite acceptable first approximations. Both the plastic IUD

10

and the steroid pill illustrate the character of many majorproblems that confront us. For both, there appears reasonto believe that an occasionalalthough unfortunately un-predictableuser may be injured, even killed thereby. Butthe overall death rate is considerably less than that frompregnancy itself, and both their users and society benefitfrom the reduced birth rate. Hence, one should encourageuse of these procedures, while recognizing their undesirableattributes. It is this kind of "trade-off" of risk vs. benefitthat characterizes all decisions concerned with thequality of life, necessary to achievement of the greater goodfor the greater number.

BRIGHT as the very long term prospects could be, theimmediate future is difficult indeed. If we fail, trulylarger populations could well result, irreversibly, in the endof civilization as we have known it, much less as it mightbea return to barbarism and dark ages, well put by anancient poet:

"A wise man may grasp how ghastly it may beWhen all this world's wealth standeth wasteeven as now, in many places over the earth,Walls stand wind beaten,Heavy with hoar frost; ruined habitations . . .

The maker of men has so marred this dwellingThat human laughter is not heardAnd idle stand these old giant works."

The problems differ sharply in the developed and de-veloping nations. Although population growth is faster inthe latter, the immediate penalty for such growth is far

11

greater in the former. As compared to a native of theAmazon jungles, an Indian village, or a Nigerian smalltown, or to the Egyptian fellahin, we make enormouslygreater impact on the environment and on our resources.Each American is entitled, by birth as it were, to a schooldesk, a dormitory bed, a hospital bed, perhaps 400 squarefeet of a personal dwelling space, 16 feet of steel on thehighway and all the gasoline he can burn, as well as 30grams of animal protein per day. To add to such a con-suming population is horrendous to contemplate. Thedifficulty in inerely sustaining the life of a Brazilian nativemay loom even largerbut it has little impact on the re-serves of coal, oil, iron ore, copper ore, or phosphate rockand contributes little to the despoliation of the environ-ment.

Current projections suggest that by the year 2000, ascompared with 1950, oil consumption in the United Stateswill rise by 500 percent, automobile production by 700percent, residential construction 1000 percent, chemicalsand chemical produ as 1200 percent, air passenger miles2600 percent, highway construction 2000 percent, electricpower consumption by 1800 percent, and disposable percapita income, in conaant dollars, by 250 percent! If un-checked, we could undoubtedly create the industrial plantand technical capability to realize those projections. Butthere are grave doubts that our resources or environmentcould tolerate the result; "America the Beautiful" wouldhave been desecrated beyond the limits of tolerance of hercustodians.

Hence, the growing sense of urgency that, in advancednations, population growth be minimized, that economicgrowth be slowed while we develop a coherent quantitative

12

13k.

model of our national life, establish what order of resourceutilization and recycling, of land use, etc. is compatiblewith a harmonious steady state with our resources andenvironment, develop a commensurate national populationpolicy, and effect social action programs that can, in time,assure that all Americans enjoy the full advantages of cit-;zenship. We have made a small start in this direction, butonly that. Meanwhile, well-intentioned legislation con-cerned only with automotive emissions or nonreusable beercontainers, important as it may be, is much like prescribingaspirin for a brain tumor.

The magnitude of future contributions from the "have"to the "have not" nations is of great moment. For the lat-ter, enhanced agricultural productivity is the chief hope forthe accumulation of the capital required to pay he costs ofentry into our technological civilization. And yet, it is injust those countr;.s where the problems of food shortagesmay become acute. If they are to escape that crisis, they cando so only by the importation of capital from the devel-oped world, capital to provide seed, fertilizer, powerequipment, irrigation, etc. Without external help, the racebetween food supply and population will be marginal, andit is difficult to see any hope of capital accumulation forsocietal development. The burden then lies with the de-veloped world. It is their decisions that will determine thefuture of the vast masses of humanity in the developing"third world."

As that development succeeds, the per capita drain onresources must rise, as will the insult to the environment,defeating the very purposes of developmentenrichment ofthe quality of life. If, however unworthy it may seem tosome of you, the goal is to have all of humanity share the

13

14 6

current American standard of living, the planet itselfsimply cannot tolerate successful development. Hence, theacute need for worldwide population controlnow. Large-scale assistance to developing nations will have, at first, theeffect of a brake on economic growth in the advanced na-tions, itself a desirable goal. Other, perhaps even morepainful, consequences must also be recognized: as devel-opment succeeds, the smaller the gap in education andgeneral life style between the now developed and less de-veloped worlds becomes, the greater will be the resentmentof the remaining differential, as we have seen happenwithin our own borders.

In this sense, such assistance could be planting the seedsof later conflict, a dilemma whose resolution is not pres-ently apparent, yet must not be a deterrent on purely hu-manitarian grounds. In any case, for the moment, that isn'tthe problem. In general, the gap between us is wideningrather than closing.

However successful that outcome, all nations must con-cern themselves with preserving and protecting their en-vironments and resources. So much has been said about thisproblem in recent times that further elaboration would beunwelcome. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we recognizethat we know little and badly require scientific under-standing of the nature and magnitude of our actual envi-ronmental difficulties.

The current wave of public concern has been aroused inlarge measure by scientists who have occasionally exag-gerated the all-too-genuine deterioration of the environ-ment or have overenthusiastically made demands which,unnecessarily, exceed realistically realizableor even de-sirableexpectations. 'While we must be grateful to them,

14

15-

unhappily also through their ei .orts, science is thought inthe minds of some to have contributed to the deteriorationof the quality of life; science is equated with technologyand both are judged to be immoral.

The manner of directing attention to these problems hasturned much of the general public, many decision makers,and a yet larger fraction of our youth, against science. Iregard them in much the same light as I do those whoproclaimed an extraordinary widespread malnutrition inthe United States at the recent White House Conference onNutrition, but produced no quantitative data to substan-tiate their allegations. The nations of the world may yetpay a dreadful price for the public behavior of scientistswho depart from established fact to indulge themselves inhyperbole.

Alarmed voices advocate retreat from our technologicalcivilization as if life had been better in some bygone agewhen our ancestors lived closer to nature than do we, de-siring a return to good old days that never were. For mypart, I much prefer that we attempt to manage our tech-nological civilization yet more successfully, remedying theerrors of the past, building the glorious world that onlyscience-based technology can make possible.

It is the profundity and widespread concern of the mo-ment that is so surprising. Perhaps this reflects our greatfrustration in finding successful approaches to yet morevexing social and international political questions, and itis simply a great relief to speak to concerns that most canshare, particularly now that one cannot even be in favor ofmotherhood. Should that be the case, it would be well totake maximal advantage of the opportunity. It will surelypass as public concern and interest turn elsewhere, as the

15

1 66 i

public and its political representatives begin to take en-vironmental deterioration as much for granted as they nowdo the presence of an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

I cannot, however, share the facile criticism of industryand Government, damned by the more violent, anarchicalenemies of the Establishment as showing a history of un-conscionable misdeeds. The course of history could scarcelyhave been otherwise. How unlikely is a scenario in whichconcern for the consequences to the quality of the envi-ronment would have begun concomitant with the originsof the industrial revolution, when the esthetic and hygienicstate of every major city was then far less acceptable than isthat of any city of the moment.

It is in the nature of homeostatic systems to overshoot, toregister the resultant aberration, and make appropriatecorrections. Man and his societies are no exception. All ofour history is one of action and reaction. Rather thancondemn the past, be grateful that the environmentalmovement is now sufficiently strong to provide opportunityto rectify our errors and chart a new course for the futurewhile there is time. And there is yet time.

In the advanced nations, life for most persons was neverso long, so rich in experience, so comfortable as it is today.In some senses, the environment was never cleaner. It isnot evident that that is equally true in many developingnationsthe curse of population growth. But even there, inmost instances, population growth is not so much theconsequence of increased fertility m it is of the sharp declinein the childhood death rate resulting from introduction ofrelatively primitive sanitary procedures. Indeed, as suchfamilies come to believe that their young, their living in-surance policies, will survive, contraception or abortion

16

will surely gain far greater acceptance.Air pollution in this and other countries is certainly

serious. It has engendered large-scale unpleasantness butnot yet serious damage to man or his fellow creatures.Technology already in being or readily fashioned canrectify the more serious aspects of degradation of airquality, and I consider this a relatively temporary, albeitimportant, problem. Despite some relatively recent state-ments, there is absolutely no likelihood of a significantreduction in atinost_ ieric oxygen. Even if all of the knownfossil fuel reserves of the world were to be burned tomor-row, this could engender a reduction of only a few percent;our oxygen supply is vouchsafed for the indefinite future.However, the consequences of buildup of atmosphericcarbon dioxide are quite uncertain; indeed, one does notknow whether, on balance, the results might even bebeneficial.

There are certainly streams and lakes that have beenwoefully injured, sewers for a melange of all of the chem-ical outpourings of our civilization. Yet, happily, this isreversible for the most part. The history of Lake Wash-ington, outside Seattle, is a case in point. Once well on theway to the current status of Lake Erie, concerted action hasso purified that lake that it now has difficulty in sustainingits salm.= population! We already possess knowledge ofdiverse measures that, collectively, would permit restora-tion of most such bodies of water. In some instances, theywould be rendered cleanerif I may be permitted the useof that wordthan ever they were in nature.

But all such activities have a price, a price which, in theend, must be passed on to the consumer, with a resultantdecreased rate of production of wealth as conventionally

17

1'81

measured. Since virtually everyone is agreed that this iswell worth the cost, that such activities are not only ac-ceptable but imperative, they constitute little problem forthe construction of appropriate public policy.

Those of us in the Western world find it somewhatironic that the planned societies of Eastern Europe havefollowed the same disastrous course and now must confrontthe same problems. What is even sadder to contemplate,however, is the prospect that, in their eagerness to attainthe life style of advanced nations, developing nations maysimilarly injure their own environments and deplete theirnatural resources even more rapidly than did we. In thosenations, the price for environmental protection is a sig-nificant limitation on the pace of development, which isalready marginal at best. Public officials who seek to im-plement programs of environmental protection in thosenations will have to look to generations yet to come forapprobation. In all likelihood, their contemporaries will beimpatient and indignant.

Man's place on earth is historically uniquz... For the firsttime, decisions knowingly made by one species determinethe number and variety of all other species. The heritage ofall of the physical and biological evolution of the planet isours alone; no other species can consider or affect its owndestiny. And that places upon us an awesome responsibil-ity. To be sure. natural cataclysms and the workings ofevolution have already resulted in the extinction of 95percent of all species that have ever appeared on earth. Butwe can determine history hereafter. In managing theearth's limited resources, it will be tragic if we neglect thisresponsibility and permit passing cupidity irreversibly todestroy the remarkable diversity of life.

18

Man long since exterminated the flightless moa, thepassenger pigeon, and we know not how many others. Theinternational irresponsibility of the whaling industry hasbeen outrageous. Are redwoods, blue whales, tigers, andcondors, to name but a few, to be only a matter of recordedlegend for your great-grandchildren? While there is yettime, national and international organizations and gov-ernments must compel measures to assure that breedingpopulations of the great forms of terrestrial and marinewildlife survive, and that there be sufficient wilderness forsolitary men to bathe in the grandeur of nature.

It is almost self-evident that population control, envi-ronmental quality, resource conservation, and the qualityof life are all facets of a single central problem, which hasbecome a central concern of governments. This may well be"the hinge of history" when man's long-terra future may bedecided. If we fail to manage these problems adequately,only the classical solutions of Tertullian may prevail, andit is doubtful whether civilization can survive. Hence,there is urgent need for an international organizationadequate to these tasks which, in the end, cannot be left tothe capricious judgments of so many individual rationalgovernments. Unfortunately, the history of the UnitedNations does not inspire confidence that it can successfullybring the nations of the world through the crisis of the restof this century.

This international organization must, on rational sci-entific grounds, establish worldwide standards of acceptablequality for water, air, and foodstuffs and recommend in-ternational population policy. It must determine what levelof extractive industry and manufacturing, worldwide, iscompatible with those standards and population so that a

19

201

steady state may be achieved with nature, with the envi-ronment, and with use of both renewable and nonrenew-able natural resources. Achievement of this goal will yetrequire a very substantial research and development effort.This does not gainsay the need for national efforts; quitethe contrary, it is the latter which must be suggested, inpart, and monitored by the international organization. Thenature of this organization, its relation to the UnitedNations, its policing power, I leave to those more politi-cally sophisticated than I. And there is little time to lose.

rHE relatively recent internal history of the UnitedStates may help to illuminate diverse aspects of theseproblems. Until now, life in the United States was governedby the operation of the market economy; today all majordecisions must be made in the public sectorbut we have,as yet, little competence in this art.

Only this year has the Government organized for effec-tive action in protecting the environment. But we still lackan adequate national policy with respect to conservation ofresources and are timid in our approach to the populationproblem. We boast of our agricultural productivity butrarely give adequate credit to the remarkable continuingresearch and development effortachieved by a combi-nation of United States Department of Agriculture labo-ratories, State university agricultural schools, and industrialplant breeders; nurtured by a giant "agri-business";and translated by a battalion of country farm agentsan enterprise that began when W. 0. Atwater foundedthe first American experiment station in New Haven.

Science and technology underpin our economy, our se-

20

21.; .

curity, our public health, and our food supplybut we lacka definitively formulated science policy, and our scienceeffort is now threatened by lack of public support. Grad-uate and professional advanced education are very largelysustained by Federal fundsbut neither Congress nor theExecutive Branch has formally acknowledged Federal re-sponsibility for these endeavors. We have had a PublicHealth Service for more than a centurybut we have yet toestablish the nature of Federal responsibility for the publichealth.

Only recently have we embarked upon a managedeconomy in the sense that Federal fiscal policy sets theenvironment for all economic decisions and gives rate anddirection to the pace of the economy, while the Govern-ment budget itself, about one fifth of the Gross NationalProduct, markedly influences the very nature of economicactivity. In recent years, our Government has accepted theinsurance function against such social hazards as unem-ployment, severe medical costs, or inadequate financialresources in old age. Soon the Government will serve as theemployer of last resort, assuring some guaranteed minimalincome for all. Perhaps uniquely among the nations of theworld we have definedin dollars per yearwhat wemean by the term "poverty," although the level so chosenwould be regarded as affluence among many of the world'speoples. Abolition of poverty is a national goal that we canprobably achieve whenever we deliberately so choose.

Importantly, there is insufficient recognition that thescience-based technology responsible for the materialwell-being that has engendered these changes is thus re-sponsible for the New Enlightenment itself. Our seeminglynew-found concern for the welfare of our fellow man is

21

occasioned by the great wealth born of technology, whichwill not permit our consciences to ignore long-standingdisparities. Moreover, the illiterate and uneducated, oncean economic asset as a pool of unskilled labor, are nolonger so needed, hence must be educated to more re-sponsible, rewarding roles in our society, to again becomeassets rather than social burdens.

Although individual or corporate activity, on its owninitiative, can contribute much to the solution of envi-ronmental, agricultural, or health problems, in this countryonly action at the Federal level can be effective if accept-able goals are to be achieved on a reasonable time scale.

Each of these situations finds analogy among other na-tions the world over as well as for the community of nationsas a whole, albeit perhaps not yet on the same time scale.Accordingly, as we have already noted, the challenge is tofashion an imaginative, universally acceptable interna-tional instrumentality that can use the best of our scientificand technological capabilities in the worldwide interest ofman. This agency must be as temperate and conservative asit is determined, must understand that the terms "pureair," "pure water," and "pure food" are essentially withoutmeaning, as is the word "safe" when applied to drugs orfood additives. Each requires quantitative definition withrespect to specific individual components, and usually thatwill entail a trade-off analogous to that which determinesthe status of the steroid contraceptive pill.

Much the same considerations apply to a total ban onchlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides before more adequatesubstitutes are found, as they do to a recent proposal to banconstruction of internal combustion engines after the year1975. Granted the unpleasantness of air pollution, granted

22

the very small threat to life now posed by carbon monox-ide, lead, sulfite, and nitrogen oxides in automobileemissions, but knowing that all can be markedly reduced ifnot eliminated, such legislation suggests that the trade-offfor a more comfortable atmosphere is to forgo the freedomof transportation we have enjoyed.

I doubt that the American people would knowingly ac-cept that trade, particularly if it were understood that aswitch to electric-powered automobiles .cannot now solvethe problem. The energy for moving automobiles, trucks,and buses must come from somewhere; if we are to usebattery power, then those batteries must be charged andrecharged. And we are already in difficulty as to where andhow to locate electricity-generating stations, which presenttheir own unsolved environmental problems.

Proposals for "zero tolerance" for all food additives andfor all drugs with respect to untoward consequences to theconsumer are of the same character.

What are the trade-offs? Surely one asks only that thebenefits to life of a life-saving drug considerably exceed thehazards of its administration. If it be a food additive thatis a nutrient known to be toxic only in very large excessasare vitamin A and vitamin Dbut not known to be toxicin amounts commensurate with nutritional requirements,then I see no objection to fortification of food preparations,even though the amount added exceeds that present in thebasic native unprocessed foodstuff. There is nothing sac-rosanct in the composition of natural foods; their compo-sition reflects not nature's design for human nutrition, butrather the chemical mixture appropriate to the functioningor propagation of the species of plants and animals whichare our foods. If fortification with synthetic amino acids or

23

vitamins is the cheapest way to assure adequate nutritionallevels, it is folly to stand in the way.

The immense benefit of fortification of wheat and cornwith lysine should be made available wherever these cerealsare the principal source of dietary protein. The nutritionalbenefits of combining foodstuffs relatively deficient indiffering essential nutrients have been known since theturn of the century. They should be made available in theless developed countries. But this requires education, cropdiversification, a market economy, and at least minimaltechnology. We may be grateful that several AIDUSDAprograms are designed to these ends.

If the additive itself be without intrinsic nutritionalvalue, but somehow necessary to assure that the full nu-tritional properties of the foodstuff reach the consumer,and there is no substitute, rigorous standards are requiredto establish what level of risk is acceptable. Lethality isquite out of the question, but an incidence of one revers-ible untoward incident per 500,000 consumers, for exam-ple, may be an acceptable risk.

If, however, the additive offers no form of mutationalvalue but is present to enhance flavor or texture, the publicis entitled to assurance that such addition is quite withouthazard, viz., failure to detect metabolic or physiologicalalterations, abnormalities of development, mutations, orneoplasia. By failure is meant that the odds against suchunwanted effects are at least greater than a million to oneat ordinary levels of intake, with no detectable chance oflethality whatsoever. We sadly lack a data base for makingsuch statements concerning most additives or many drugs;past studies of toxicity in its various forms have invariablyused too few animals, too few species, and too brief obser-

24

vational times. Most such data antedate our appreciation ofthe possibilities for mutagenesis or carcinogenesis.

This is not to urge that food additives be removed im-mediately from all food preparations but, rather, that weembark upon the extremely large effort required to obtainsuch data. International cooperation in this endeavorwould build useful bridges among nations while reducingthe costs to all and shortening the time required to obtainthe requisite information. Whether that should be anotherfunction of the proposed new international agency or anarm of an existing unit of the United Nations is of smallmoment. What matters is that we get on with the task.Until such time, let us behave rationally rather than "runscared" as we have done with respect to cyclamates andDDT.

THE current overly emotional worldwide awakening tothe undesirable side effects of some facets of ourtechnological civilization has led to diminution in publicsupport of the scientific endeavor. Whether this derivesfrom simple know-nothing anti-intellectualism, informedrepugnance, or simple ignorance, the effect is the samedemands for a moratorium in the pace of the scientificendeavor, reduction in support for the education oftomorrow's scientists.

I could not disagree more violently. For all of our dif-ficulties, the fact remains that the technology science makespossible is the principal tool this civilization has fashionedto alleviate the condition of man. If life is to be bettertomorrow than it was yesterday, we shall require more and

25

better science-based technology rather than less. If we re-treat from scientific research today, if we fail to educate alarge, diversified corps of scientists, some capable ofworking at the disciplinary frontiers, others trained andmotivated to function in multidisciplinary teams gatheredto address one of the multitudinous societal problems, weshall also fail to construct a platform for the technology oftomorrow, and our great-grandchildren will not thank us.

The scientific and technical communities have failed toconvey the nature of their endeavors, their successes, fail-ures, and problems to the public at large. For most citizens,science is usually equated with "big science," the science ofradio telescopes and large accelerators, the science thatgives us colored television, the engineering that put a manon the moon.

But there is not equivalent public understanding of the"small science" that gives us an abundance of natural andsynthetic fibers, the science that has made modern agri-culture nothing short of miraculous, that accounts for themyriad nutrilous and convenient products to be found inevery supermarket. There are few more glorious tales in theannals of mankind, few activities by which so many havebenefited, and yet there is minimal public appreciation ofthis endeavor.

What fraction of our public is aware of the decades ofscientific breeding that provided the great variety ofcrop-plant strains now resistant to a host of environmentalhazards, the careful studies of the nurture required for eachsuch strain, the sophisticated utilization of genetic un-derstanding, including the surprisingly successful, delib-erate creation of polysomy by breeding techniques, whichby virtually inventing new plant species have so enriched

26

the American table, the painstaking studies of animalnutrition and breeding that have made possible the world'smost bountiful protein supply?

Every school child should learn that in agricultural re-search one must keep running simply to remain even asenvironmental hazards catch up with yesterday's breedingsuccesses, that much remains to be done if aquiculture is tobecome a commercial reality on a meaningful scale, ifunicellular organisms are to become important foodstuffs,in short, if we are to assure an adequate future food supplyfor the entire world.

All must understand that, although the world populationwill double by the year 2000, simple doubling of agricul-tural productivity will not suffice. We can no longer tol-erate the widespread protein and vitamin A deficiencies intropical countries that so limit their development. Nothingless than a quadrupling of the productivity of the biospherein the next 30 years will suffice if mankind's basic needs areto be met. The magnitude of that task for agriculturalproducers and food processors is cell evident; that it may befeasible is suggested by the record of the "Green Revolu-tion." But time will not wait. We must get on with thesetasks immediately if the full human potential of mankindis to be realized. If population control fails, all mankindwill one day be destined at best to eat vegetable equivalentsof milk, chicken, or beef.

In general, the public is somewhat better informed withrespect to the nature and rewards of medical research thanit is with respect to agricultural research. Yet here, too,misunderstanding and incomprehension are the norm.Publicity is given to what are termed "breakthroughs"when these are but the visible tips of the research iceberg.

27

The public, Congressmen, and even some medical practi-tioners demand that medical schools devote themselves tothe production of "ordinary practicing doctors" in greatnumbers, at the expense of research activity, meanwhiledemanding that such activity be more dire..'/ addressed toimportant problems of disease rather than exploring thenature of life, demanding that limited Federal resources bediverted from support of research to the delivery of healthservices. They could not be more wrong.

As Ivan Bennett noted, what is really meant by "medical'care" is the mobilization of resources of manpower andfacilities to bring to bear inadequate half-way technologies.When research provides a basis for truly definitive pre-vention or therapy, invariably the resultant control of adisease is enormously simpler and cheaper than the pal-liative half-way technologies that were used before.

Moreover, each time this sort of advance has occurred, ithas been the consequence of fundamental insight intounderlying disease mechanisms provided by basic research.Consider, if you will, a partial list of such diseases, each ofwhich was at one time a major drain on the then extanthealth care system but is now of little consequence in thissense: infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, typhoidfever, infantile diarrhea, epidemic meningitis, typhus,trachoma, scarlet fever, poliomyelitis, cholera, yellow fever,bacterial endocarditis, syphilis, gonorrhea, lobar pneu-monia, measles, rubella, whooping cough, diphtheria,smallpox, tetanus, or puerperal sepsisnutritional diseasessuch as pellagra, kwashiorkor, rickets, scurvy, iron defi-ciency anemia, and pernicious anemia, or Addison's dis-ease, hyperthyroidism, goiter, juvenile diabetes, glaucoma,erythroblastosis fetalis, and Parkinsonism. In every case,

28

today, their control or prevention is relatively simple andcheap. It is not these diseases, now under control, that posethe great problems of logistics, manpower, and costs for thecurrent health-care sycrem.

In contrast stand those only partly understood diseasesthat can be mitigated only by major effortsbut for whichwe lack definitive cures or preventive measures. It isthese which now demand the most complex technologiesresearch has yet made available to the modern hospitaltechnologies, nevertheless, which constitute only palliativeor physiologically corrective measures. These disordersengender large human and financial cost and frustrate thehealth-care system, not because of shortage of professionalmanpower or of hospital faci''ities, but primarily becausethere is so little truly effective medical technology availableeven in the very best of circumstances. This is true for mostforms of cancer, stroke, coronary thrombosis, myocardialinfarction, hepatic cirrhosis, glomerulonephritis, pyelo-nephritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, acuterheumatic fever, disseminated lupus, bronchial asthma,multiple sclerosis, the senile psychoses, schizophrenia,mental retardation, emphysema, most genetic disorders ofmetabolism, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and vir-tually all the virus disorders that are not preventable byearly immunization.

There are promising avenues of research with respect topractically all of these disorders. None is regarded as ahopeless problem by those engaged in its study; an atmos-phere of confidence is shared by the research communityin almost each instance, in large measure the consequenceof the rapidly developing understanding of normal struc-ture, physiology, and metabolism in molecular terms,

29

30

permitting rational, penetrating questions concerning theetiology and pathogenesis of disease. Elimination of themajor lethal and incapacitating diseases that now afflictmankind is not a hopeless dream but a rational projectioninto the future, based on the capabilities of the present.

Whereas, if this Nation forswears research progress, itmust plan for at least 50 percent more hospitals, moredoctors, more nurses, more sanitaria, and more suffering bythe turn of the centuryscarcely a brave sight.

Biological research has laid the foundations for modernagriculture and can continue to do so; the way has beenfashioned for alleviation, if not elimination, of the majorkillers of mankind. Biological research can thus providethe means whereby our planet can sustain a large mass ofhumanity, the quality of whose lives will vary inverselywith their numbers.

Is Homo sapiens, then, as we know him, the end of bi-ological evolution? Is man, the first product of evolutioncapable of controlling his own evolution, to put an end tothat evolution? Are we another evolutionary blind alley?Perhaps.

By outwitting the forces of nature, man's numbers haveburgeoned. By controlling his environment he has cir-cumvented the driving force of natural selection whichguided evolution in the past. By finding euphenic solutionsto genetic diseaselow phenylalanine diets for phenylke-tonurics, milk-free diets for galactosemics, insulin for di-abetics, acetazolamide for periodic paralysis, allopurinol forgout, etc.we have even contributed to the deterioration ofour own genetic stock, minimizing the deleterious effects ofgenes that formerly were extinguished in homozygotes. Ifthat is all we do with our understanding, then evolution

30

31

will not only have halted but retrogressed. Yet this neednot be so.

Fairly soon, we must surely take the minimal step ofaborting homozygotic fetuses bearing serious genetic dis-ease detectable by routine, safe procedures. One day wemay learn to use the technique of viral transduction, suc-cessful in bacteria, to introduce the genes for the enzymesmissing from the tissues of individuals so afflicted. But thatis but one more form of euphenic therapy and would againcontribute to deterioration of the genetic stock. This is thesense in which the term "genetic engineering" has beenemployed, and I find little attraction in the prospect.

Experimentation with the genetic possibilities of man-kind seems repugnant today, but undoubtedly the time willcome when man's curiosity will stir him to explore the fullpotential of his own genes. 'Whether this takes the form ofdeliberate breeding by selection of biological mates or se-lective use of artificial insemination, by making replicatecopies of admirable individuals, or even deliberate creationof mutants remains to be seen. But experimental manip-ulation of the human germ plasm in a deliberate attemptto create a strain of humans selected for some attributemust be reserved to a remote future when man is far morecertain of himself and his values. In the interim, the ran-dom mating we have always known is but a relatively smallsampling of the immense variety inherent in the humangene pool and creates a sufficiently intriguing human di-versity.

Science is capable of fulfillment of our dream. Biologicaland physical research can permit us to refashion ourselvesand our world. If the dream fails, it will be because of thelimitations of man the social creature, evidence for which

31

32

is to be found daily on the front pages of our newspapers.Despite the frenetic concern for environmental pollution,there is really no question whether man can live with histechnology. The real question is whether man can learn tolive with himself.

Just as ecology is too immature to cope with our vastenvironmental problems, the social sciences are too youngto cope with our most pressing national and internationalproblemsterminating the war in Southeast Asia, estab-lishing a stable permanent peace, learning to deal withpolitical terrorism and the challenge to the legitimacy ofgovernment, achieving a successful progressive modusvivendi in our racial problems, coping with violence andcrime, reconstruction and management of large cities,curbing the drug culture, developing an adequate systemfor the delivery of health care, abolishing poverty, illiter-acy, and ignorance the world over, in addition to the var-ious problems we have already discussed.

It is not at all obvious that we have the understanding orthe social and political institutions to deal with these fu-rious challengesbut seek them we must. Meanwhile, thelong upward struggle of man from his animal origins af-fords cause for hope.

In view of the contributions of science to society, yes-terday, today, and surely tomorrow, we scientists are shockedto find science under attackyet this is nothing new.

Many are permanently humiliated by lack of under-standing of science and its tools, or hold science account-able for real or imagined abuses of power, finding us guiltyof destruction of the environment and even of generatingthe population problem by preserving life. Yet, surely, noother course is open to us but to use our growing

32

33

understanding in the service of man.Petronius, an official of Nero's court, said, "It is not the

shrines of the gods nor the powers of the air that send thedreams which mock the mind with flitting shadows; manmakes his own dreams." Science is still the instrument withwhich he can make those dreams come true.

34

Dr. Philip Handler, the 1970 W.O.Atwater MemorialLecturer, is President of the National Academy of Sciences,the Nation's most important scientific body.

Through the years, Dr. Handler has established a na-tionwide reputation as an articulate and persuasivespokesman for science, and as one familiar with the polit-ical mechanisms through which science can work for thegood of society.

Dr. Handler has long had an interest in nutrition. Hisearly work as a research biochemist at Duke University wasdevoted to studying some of the problems of basic bio-chemistry related to nutritional disorders. In 1950, at theage of 32, he was named chairman of the Biochemistry De-partment and later, James B. Duke Professor of Biochem-istry.

Increasingly, Dr. Handler became involved with thepolitics of sciencea decision motivated by his growingconcern over the role that science should play in meetingpeople's needs. He accepted numerous advisory positions inseveral national agencies, including the National Institutesof Health, National Science Board of the National ScienceFouhdation, and the Veterans Admini.:tration.

He served for three years as a member of the President'sScience Advisory Committee and, since 1966, has served aschairman of a historic survey of modern biology. Thisf.urvey culminated in a definitive book, "Biology and theFuture of Man,' which details current knowledge in thebiological sciences and indicates future trends. Dr. Handleredited the book.

Dr. Handler was elected President of the NationalAcademy of Sciences in 1969.

34

Previous Lecturers

1968

1969

Dr. Artturi I. VirtanenDirector, Biochemical Research InstituteHelsinki, FinlandAddressed the Federation of American Societiesfor Experimental BiologyAtlantic City, N.J., April 16

Dr. Albert Szent-GyorgyiDirector, Institute for Muscle ResearchMarine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass.Addressed the American Chemical SocietyNew York, N.Y., September 10

36

35

Agricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureWashington, D.C. 20250April 1971

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1.971 0-412-365

37