203 
In Canada our students begin to specialize in science in high school. In 
college they earn bachelor of science degrees without ever having had a course 
in literature, art, history, philosophy, or religion. As well, by the time 
they are practicing scientists, papers older than ten years are generally 
referred to as classics — that is, worth citing but not reading. So in order 
to stay at the cutting edge of research they have to be tunnel-visioned. 
I think that we as scientists today are incapable of understanding what 
the real implications and long-term applications of our work will be. We 
don't have the breadth, time, or interest to find out. 
Several years ago Roland Hotchkiss wrote in an editorial in Science , 
and I quote, "Many of us feel an instinctive revulsion at meddling with the 
finely tuned factors that make an individual what he is, yet I believe it 
will be done. The path will be built by a combination of altruism, private 
profit, and ignorance." And Philip Abelson, the editor of Sc ience , wrote 
in the same editorial, "I agree. Geneticists will have high ideals for the 
application of their knowledge. In practice, power to apply that knowledge, 
as was the case with nuclear energy, will come to rest in other hands." 
I believe that we are all contributing the tools for a technology that 
will ultimately be used to alter the human genotype. Who will do it? On 
what scale? Why will it be done? I don't know. But the current interest 
in sociobiology, race, social class and IQ, innate aggressiveness and terri- 
toriality, suggest to me a social climate in which genetic engineering will be 
quite acceptable. 
Suppose, for example, that I were to tell you there is a genotypical- 
ly distinct class of people who, at the moment of conception, could be pre- 
dicted to have a high probability of never finishing high school, of having 
IQs below 100, of being impoverished, malnourished, involved in crime, and 
dying prematurely. Would it be a good class to tamper with genetically? Of 
course, what I have just described are blacks in ghettos and Indians on 
reserves, and here, clearly, it is not the genotype that causes the problems, 
but the social attitudes of the society around. I wonder whether we will take 
the easy way out of solving racism by looking at the changing of race rather 
than changing society? 
Would we, for example, find it easier to tamper with the human genotype, 
to make the human physiology tolerate a higher level of a pollutant rather 
than cleaning up the environment? I fear humans tampering with the human 
genotype, not because it is against God or is unnatural, but because humans 
have had a history of inventing very powerful tools and technologies without 
the wisdom to use them properly. 
I realize all of this may seem very outrageous to many of you. I don't 
mean in any way to impugn the motives of anyone here, or people who have 
been involved in the discussions. But a simple look at history shows us 
how misguided people have been for reasons of their limited vision, vested 
interest, and even good intentions. 
[ 407 ] 
