Title:

A Crisis in Evolution

Creator:

Lederberg, Joshua

Date:

1963

Periodical:

New Scientist

Publisher:

Reed Business Information Limited

Location:

Box: 82. Folder: 3

Rights:

Reproduced with permission of New Scientist Publications.

Genre:

Articles

Format:

Text

Extent:

2 pages

Language:

English

Legacy Source Citation:

Periodical. Lederberg, Joshua. "A Crisis in Evolution." New Scientist 21, (1963): 212-215. Article. 2 Images.. New Scientist. Lederberg UI. P110

Legacy ID:

BBABIH

NLM ID:

101584906X867

Profiles Collection:

The Joshua Lederberg Papers

Shareable Link:

https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/101584906X867

Annotation:

Author: Joshua Lederberg. Date Written: June 2, 2003. KW: 110 Lederberg J. A crisis in evolution. New Scientist 21: 212-213. (1963) repr. in Calder 1983; This was followed in 1994 with a retrospection, published New Scientist magazine, vol 144 issue #1947, 15/10/1994, page 51 Some 31 years ago, I referred to a "Crisis in Evolution" as a product of the scientific revolution eventuating in molecular biology. For the forthcoming 20 to 50 years, I suggested such possibilities as: 1) availability of organ transplantation, 2) artificial organs, 3) extension of life span, 4) enhancement of brain development, and 5) clonal reproduction. I stressed my preference for "euphenic" measures, those affecting the function and development of the individual, to "eugenic", which might leave a more deepseated imprint on the evolution of the species. The time span for that muted prophecy is more than half up on a linear scale (albeit technological advance is more nearly exponential); it is reasonable to ask for an assessment. There has been radical scientific advance in 1) and 5) -- sufficient to have recruited substantial impetus for social regulation, e.g. of "markets" in organs, and in research with human embryos respectively. I am confident that those markets will be alleviated by the development of transgenic animals, bred for the purpose: this is the target of several commercial initiatives right now. The technology for embryological interventions -- viz. the very transgenics just mentioned -- is already far past the point of comfort about their human application. I have just seen notice in the daily press advertising a service for single sperm inoculation with in vitro fertilization, as a means to alleviate mail infertility. With the exception of the artificial heart, organ prostheses are moving along in many fields, with implants ranging from intraosseous titanium teeth (which I enjoy to great advantage myself) to pacemakers and rudimentary artificial cochleas. There is social ambivalence about the heart, as much as daunting technical obstacles in the control of blood clotting: we have hardly begun to measure the open-ended costs that will be invoked by that technological fix. For sure, prevention of heart disease has been a preferred option during the last 3 decades, and already with substantial benefit to healthy life span. As to the brain, we have just begun to uncover the relevant range of neural growth factors; and these are in earliest clinical trials, some of them disappointing, to limn their therapeutic utility. A modest euphenic advance has been the advocacy of folic acid supplementation for the avoidance of spina bifida. We are still in the midst of evolving the social technology needed to cope with the steady advance in life-span: witness the debates about health care reform in the United States.; jl 6/2/03 ~

Lederberg Grouping:

P. Published Scientific Article.