Roger Masters promises that efforts to bridge the gap between the social sciences and the life sciences will clarify our concept of human nature. He presents a number of propositions derived from his own work during the past 15 years in order to explore the scientific meaning of human nature, of political thought, and political leadership.

One does not have to be a natural scientist or a science writer to appreciate the possible benefits of biotechnology for the developing countries, but one cannot be a social scientist without being apprehensive about the costs and unforeseen consequences these almost miraculous advances may entail. In the past few decades, it has become obvious that development or modernization is much more complex and harder to achieve than was often supposed when decolonization inspired hope that economic growth could be achieved rapidly, and that with it would come social as well as material progress. In most, though not all, of the developing countries, sustained and balanced economic growth has so far not been attained, for reasons that include inability to control population growth, poor climate and soil conditions, inadequate energy resources, and—no less important—the difficulty of transforming and adapting traditional cultural values and social structures. These deeply entrenched social conditions often frustrate efforts of reform, whether they are aimed at increasing average per capita income or at assuring fair distribution of the benefits of economic growth.

One of the more depressing thoughts that afflicts me Phoenix-like is whether or not I am in fact adding to the process of development. Will the work I am doing to affect the international transfer of biotechnology and relevant information to the developing countries help them realize an improvement in the standard of living of their people? Or, as Sanford Lakoff asks, will my work more likely result in a malaria vaccine (made possible by the application of genetic engineering techniques) that will save millions of people-only to have them face starvation? Will advances in agriculture aggravate the ongoing unsettling of populations from rural areas with all the associated miseries this implies? If and when a bioscience-based industry is established in a developing country, will the sale of its products largely benefit a few owners and corrupt officials (no doubt bought off to turn a blind eye to violations of safety codes)? Is biotechnology likely to upset social orders, thus bringing about more unrest and civil discord in individual countries?