schools.)nSexual biases are not the only onesnunder scientific scrutiny in NaturalnHistory. In his column “This View ofnLife,” Stephen Jay Gould asserts thatnfrom a genetic standpoint there is nongood reason for even naming races.nGould believes that it would be “poornlogic … to hinge a moral or politicalnargument upon any factual statementnabout human biology.” He assures usnthat he regards “equality of opportunitynas inalienable, universal, and unrelatednto the biological status of individuals.”nWhere the universal principlesncome from only Gould—and KarlnMarx—knows. Gould is very sure—nand pleased—that the “best modernnbiological knowledge” nicely harmonizesnwith egalitarian ethics.nBecause Gould wrote his piece innNoember 1984 in South Africa, itnseems quite possible that he was responsiblenfor soliciting a piece thatnappeared in NH the following monthnby a Zulu chief. This article explainednthat Zulu military conquests had oncengiven southern Africa a golden era andnthat—gien majority rule in his landn—the “African humanism” of tribalnculture would provide surer supportnfor humane communalism and “democraticnjustice” than Western valuesndo. Put aside the absurdity of thenclaim (compared to Zulu kings likenGhaka, Hitler was an Alan Alda). Wenhae to wonder why Natural Historyngives a tribal leader an opportunity ton• expound his views on politics andnhistory. In general, scientific journalistsnhave a strange admiration for primitivenpeoples ignorant of all Westernnnorms, including logic and science.nThe Balinese and the Zulus are notnthe only beneficiaries of this new attitude.nWe find in Natural History lastnspring a portrayal of Lacadan Mayas asnan enchanting people, until Christiannmissionaries and capitalists with bulldozersnarrived. (NH is quite eager,nhowever, to see the Western technologynof contraception disseminated innthe Third World.) NH is so eager tonturn back the clock that it is pushingnfor a “return to wood fuel.”nThere is an obvious conflict betweennscientific objechvity and thenmyths by which the editors live. AtnNatural History, at least, the mythsnseem to be- winning. Last Novembernbioscientist John Maynard Smith re­ncanted his opposition to myths. It tooknhim a while, but Smith finally discoverednthat taken simply as science, evolutionarynbiology offers no support tonsuch causes as homosexual rights andnfeminism. For Smith, the need is clearnfor some new union of science andnmyth, though the distinctions betweennthe two must always be kept in view.nIn consummating this marriage, scientistsnmust listen to those social, ethical,nand political movements that aren”making some ideas seem worth pursuingnand others implausible or unpromising.”nTo the dubious latterncategory Smith relegates the soc-n•iobiological studies of E. O. Wilsonnand Richard Alexander (whom he notntoo subtly links to Nazism). For ideasn”worth pursuing,” Smith is apparenflynlooking left. Stalinist sponsorship ofnLysenko cannot be condoned, but henfinds value in the “very different”nMarxist analysis of science offered bynphysicist J. D. Bernal, who believednthat capitalism distorts science and sonretards “progress toward an understandingnof nature.”nIt is too early to predict the offspringnof this marriage of Faustus and Helen.nScientists could learn important lessonsnon restraint if they were to turn tonthe scriptural accounts of the Gardennof Eden and the Tower of Babel. Thenlegends of Greece have likewise muchnto say about the presumption of scientificnrevolutionaries like Prometheusnand Daedalus—who sacrificed his sonnto intellectual freedom—or the greatestnmythic intellectual of all, Oedipus:nhe exulted in his freedom and hisnability to solve the riddles of humannlife. He spurned convention andnmocked religion in the pursuit ofnknowledge, and in the end—blindnand homeless — he -wandered thenworld like a tormented spirit. Scientistsnwould do well to hold fast to suchncautionary tales.nIf that is the sort of marriage theynhave in mind, “tis a consummationndevoutly to be wished.” A more likelynresult will be the subordination ofnscience to Utopian ideologies and tonthe aspirations of elementary teachersnand tribal chieftains. Science in thenservice of ideology is an old story innthis century. After the pseudoscientificneugenics of the Nazis and the drugn’therapy’ used against Soviet dissidents,nit is not too hard to imagine thendissertations Marxist feminists willnwrite on sex hormone treatments: AndrogynousnRights and Amazons: FromnMyth to Reality. ccnLIBERAL ARTSnMan s InhumanitynnnBurke taught us to say tfiat art is man’snnature, but modern medicine takes usnone step further. The New EnglandnJournal of Medicine offered this newnvision of humanity:nLaboratory reproduction isnradically human compared tonconception by ordinarynheterosexual intercourse. It isnwilled, chosen, purposed, andncontrolled; and surely these arenamong the traits that distinguishnHomo sapiens from others innthe animal genus. . . . Coitalnreproduction is, therefore, lessnhuman than laboratorynreproduction.nOnly in New England. ccnAUGUST 1985/39n