THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY

1230 YORK AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10021
July 29, 1986

 

TOSHUA LEDERBERG

PRESIDENT

Dr. Barton Childs
Department of Pediatrics
The Johns Hopkins Hospital
Baltimore, Maryland 21205

Dear Barton:
I have your very interesting letter of July 14th.

"Resistance" has been a catch word among sociologists of
science for some time. I enclose Bernard Barber's leading
article which appeared some time ago: it gives you a check
list of the considerations that sociologists have thought
about.

You raise a more puzzling question: why should medical
students have such rigid views? I suppose you have to begin
with the inquiry: what exactly is their theory of human nature
that would be in opposition to the balanced genetic-environ-
mental determinism that you and I are so familiar with? Or is
it that they are incapable of forming a general theoretical
conception of any kind? I think something more like the latter;
the balanced theory is just more complex than many people are
educated to be able to handle. Partly for that reason, partly
for others, there are of course strong ideological positions
at both extremes of environmental or genetic fatalism; and it
would be interesting to plumb your students to see which of
them come from those perspective.

I'm going to share these thoughts with Bob Merton who has
been both a sociologist of science and a particular student of
medical education for many years.

Resistance to ideas plays an important role in the study of
political crises: you might find it of interest to peruse Bob
Jervis' book "Perception and Misperception in International
Politics, and Ned Lebow's "Between Peace and War: Crises..."
These political scientists have done pioneering work in showing
how rigid mind sets have impaired rational behavior during
historically critical situations.
Dr. Barton Childs
July 29, 1986

~2-

I'm afraid I just can't take Gunther Stent too seriously:
in inverse proportion to his own dogmatism.

As to Kuhnian revolutions there are grave problems of
definition. Somebody collected 20, at least, different ways
in which the term "paradigm" has been used; and to Kuhn's own
credit he has shifted his views substantially over the years.
I do not believe that he would offer any single example in
the history of biology that would constitute an authentic rev-
olution (Kuhn 1962): if Darwin doesn't fit, what would? So I
guess my own stance would be that of punctuated evolution:
not always smooth and gradual but rarely so extreme a break as
to fit Kuhn's original postulates.

Have you worked out how Roger Williams fits into the history
of chemical individuality?

I suppose it is impossible to look at the evolution of the
ideas of biochemical individuality with respect to human nature,
without some attention to the political philosophy of the in-
dividual, and how this has fared through the 19th and 20th cen-

turies.
fore senor ety
Jo a Lederberg
Enecls.
Ie

Batu C/
Thm BE [sins