"19
Page 4--Wednesday, November 16, 1977-The Michigan Daily
:45 ILIat
Eighty-Eight Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Vol. LXXXVILI, No. 60
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
['he, Sen ate 'race free-for-all
Heal Service
D ILL MILLIKEN pulled out of the
state's U.S. Senate race Monday,
setting the stage for one of the hottest
political races Michigan has seen in a
long time. Political hopefuls from Mar-
quette to Monroe were waiting on pins
and needles for Milliken to indicate
whether he would run for governor
again or make a bid for Robert Griffin's
soon-to-be-vacant seat in Washington,
;and the tension eased Monday like hot
lair rushing from a punctured balloon.
The tension relieved by Milliken's
nnouncement will give way to only a
ifferent sort of tension - a long wait to
ee whom the state's parties nominate
but the atmosphere, no doubt, will
frn soon into a busting-at-the-seams
r ree-for-all. i
With Milliken out, the race must give
ay to a group of political aspirants un-
tried in the statewide arena. With the
'exception of George Romney, (and don't
rule him out,) the governor is the only
politician who has proven he can win
Michigan votes consistently. Unless
Romney jumps in, voters can expect]
long months of listening to very am-
bitious plans from very ambitious,
people whom they know very . little
about.
What is important is that this is a
crucial time for both of the state's par-!
ties. With Phil Hart gone, they
Democrats are depending on the hazy;
figure of Don Riegle to carry the ban-l
ner. With Griffin retiring, the state
GOP's tradition of moderation looks like
it may be fading; only Milliken remains
to stave off the neanderthal Robert
Huber wing of the party. The race looks
exciting indeed, but it is important that
voters weigh and watch the newcomers
with particular caution. Without reputa-
tions to run on, candidates will be push-
ing images above all else. Fresh blood is
more than welcome, but there is much
at stake in this Senate race; keep cool
and watch closely.
By SYLVIA HACKER
and NANCY PALCHIK
QUESTION: What exactly is a
narcotic?
ANSWER: Narcotic or narcotic
analgesics as they are technically
called, are a type of drug which
produces several effects - the
primary being the relief of pain
(or analgesia). Narcotics are the
most effective drugs available
for the relief of pain during the
conscious state. Other effects in-
clude narcosis or a state of stupor
or sleep, and addiction. Although
the precise mode of action of the
narcotic drugs is not clear, they
seem to act on thercentral ner-
vous system rather than upon
peripheral pain receptors.
Narcotics may be classified as
natural, semisynthetic or syn-
thetic. Opium, prepared from the
juice of unripe seed pods of the
opium poppy, is the source of
natural narcotics. The pharma-
cologically active components of
opium are members of a class of
chemical compounds known as
alkaloids. Although numerous
alkaloids are present in opium
(including codeine), morphine is
the most important. First
isolated in 1803, it was regarded
as the "new wonder drug pain
killer." It is predominantly re-
sponsible for the pharmacologi-
cal properties of opium and re-
mains the standard against
which new analgesic narcotics
are measured. Since opium is the
source of these natural alkaloids,
other narcotics with actions
similar to those of morphine are
also sometimes called opiates.
SEMISYNTHETIC narcotics
are obtained by relatively simple
structural modifications of mor-
phine or codeine molecules.
Heroin, for example, is morphine
heated in the presence of acetic
acid (found in vinegar). Fully
synthetic narcotics (e.g.
methadone and meperidine or
Demerol) have a structural
resemblance to the whole or part
of the morphine molecule.
The opiates were probably used
to relieve pain as far back as 5000
B.C. The Greek poet, Homer,
called it "that potential destroyer.
of grief" and attributed its dis-
covery to the Egyptians who may
have learned of its use from the
inhabitants of Asia Minor where
the opium poppy was first culti-
vated. In the United States opium
was sold legally throughout the
19th century when doctors
referred to it as "God's Own
Medicine."
Addiction to opium was first re-
corded in 300 B.C. by the Greek
physician, Erasistratus, who cau-
tioned against its addictive na-
ture. When heroin was derived in
1898 it was hoped that it would
serve as a remedy for morphine
addiction. However, although
heroin proved an even better pain
killer than morphine, it also tur-
ned out to be even more addic-
tive. In turn, although each of the
synthetic narcotics was de-
veloped to provide an anal-
gesic without addicting proper-
ties, all of them are capable of
producing physical dependence.
QUESTION: Everyone keeps
saying to eat a good breakfast.
What is a good breakfast any-
way?
I.book
ANSWER: Recent studies
seem to show that a "good break-
fast" is one which is high in
protein - one which includes
eggs, ham, cheese or fish, for
example, rather than a popular
one which consists of such items
as coffee, cereal, bread and juice
(high in carbohydrate). It has
been found that reducing,
although not eliminating, the in-
take of carbohydrates and in-
creasing protein hasbeen
significant in decreasing fatique
and fluid retention. Keep in mind
that following the night fast, the
digestive tract has been at rest
and the blood sugar is low. Eating
will stimulate digestion and raise
the blood sugar, and a number of
studies demonstrate that produc-
tivity in the late morning hours is
greater for those who eat a good
breakfast than for those who skip
it or only eat a snack on their cof-
fee break.
Please send all health related
questions to:
Health Educators
Univ. Health Service
Div. of the Office of
Student Services
207 Fletcher
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
I
Letters to.
I
mind and muscle
To The Daily:
This letter is in rebuttal to a let-
ter published recently in the
Daily (Nov. 7th), which asked U
of M football fans to forgive foot-
ball players for their mistakes.
This article also stated that foot-
ball fans should idolize these 6' 2"
200-pound "human beings." I
would like to make a few com-
ments about this article.
First, there are much more im-
portant things to write about or
plead for than asking U of M fans
to worship the men in blue. There
are many good causes to work for
or to write about. Yet, some peo-
ple close themselves off to the
rest of the world and instead
spend (or should I say waste)
their time worshipping the foot-
ball players.
Second, these "worshippers"
fail to notice (or they may not
The Daily
want to notice) that many of their
stars are ignorant, egotistical,
and inconsiderate. In sum, rotten
human beings. It is hard for me to
worship these players when they
hardly go to classes .and when
they do, its usually to the Frieze
building. Many football players
destroy the dorms which they live
in. These players are babied
enough by Bo and his staff, there
is no need for us to baby them.
I like football and I go to all the
games. I do not worship these
players but I do respect them for
their athletic ability (for some of
them that's all they care about).
Yet I stop there. The University
of Michigan is an excellent
educational institution but its a
shame to see people accepted to
the U of M who had-lower qualifi-
cations butgotinto the college be-
cause they had muscles.
- Bobby Morrton
:: : : :: : : :::::::.. : :::. :::::::::. :::. ::::::::::::
Editorials which appear u
: sensus opinion of the Daily's e
as well as cartoons, are the o
mit them.
in defe
By BARRY PETERSEN
When Charles Darwin in the late 1850's first
(proposed his theories on the evolution of spe-
kcies, opposition to the ideas he expounded was
(stiff. The concepts that species evolved over
along periods of time under pressure from their
et, and that species, given time,
pt to new environments, were simply
1 to be readily accepted. As for the
thought that man was simply another creature
subject to the same processes of development
gas "lower" creatures, this was really too ab-
surd to be believed. After all, was not man a
(special creation of God, made in the very
himage of the Creator Himself? Why of course
he was, the people of the time answered. Thus,
;Darwin was absurdly denounced by the "es-
Ttablishment" of his day as an anti-Christian
theretic who was trying to prove that men had
,descended from monkeys.'
" As time went by, however, and evidence in
favor of Darwin's theories grew, the tirades
against his work began to look ever more ridic-
ulous. To be sure, the anti-evolutionists, not
'quickly convinced of the correctness of Dar-
in's ideas, raised havoc well into the 20th cen-
gtury. Laws banning the discussion of evolu-
tionary theory in Tennessee public school
classes, for example, were on the books as late
as 1925, as a man by the name of John Scopes*
ppainfully discovered. Nevertheless, Darwin's
utheories gradually came to be accepted as the
only rational explanation for diversity among
species, and today's modern biological science
races many of its principles back to Darwin's
work.
PRESENTLY, a new set of revolutionary sci-
entific theories are struggling for acceptance
in the world. Coming under the general heading
of "sociobiology," these theories have arisen
out of attempts to fill in weak spots in Darwin's
work. .When Darwin discussed evolution, he
based his explanations on the premise that
natural conditions selected for or against indi-
vidual organisms. Yet this premise led to theo-
retical problems, for if it were true, why would
an organism be willing to sacrifice itself for the
good of another organism of the same species?
Such altruistic behavior could be observed in
almost all species, yet Darwin had no explana-
tion for it, as his theories would have forced
im to declare that altruists would gradually
die out of any population.
Later scientific work, begun by Austrian
monk Gregor Mendel, led'to the discovery of
enes, small pieces of organic material which
transmit the characteristics of an organism to
its offspring. From the new field of genetics,
<sociobiologists got the information they needed
to update Darwin. In sociobiological theory, it
is not the organism which is selected for or
;against by nature, but the genes of the
organisms. Since blood relatives share some
genes (for example, children share approxi-
mately half their genes with each parent, half
with each of their siblings, and grandchildren a
quarter with each grandparent), under certain
xcircumstances it would make sense for an
organism to lay down its life for its relatives. In
Q4at way it could guarantee placing more of its
orwngenes into the future population than if it
I
without a by-line represent a con-
ditorial board. All oth-r editorials,
pinions of the individuals who sub-
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ......... . . . . . . . . :
Anse of the sociobiological
gene
gists would claim that underlying motives for
human actions are at least somewhat influ-
enced by genetic factors. Harvard Zoologist
Edward O. Wilson, the author of Sociobiology:
The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Har-
vard University Press; 1975), the book which
initiated much of the recent controversy over
sociobiology, has for example, stated that
maybe 10 per cent of human behavior is gov-
erned by genes. Yet it is not for the 10 per cent
estimate of gene-based human behavior that
Wilson and his book have been most vigorously
assaulted.
discussing what is "good" or "right" are really
doing nothing more than expounding the values
which have been selected by the process of
human evolution.
What Wilson's intellectual opponents have
claimed is that Wilson, in his book, attempts to
justify present social conditions. If Wilson says,
that human behavior and thought patterns
have some genetic basis, the critics say; what
he is really telling us is that present human cul-
tural behavior and social structures are good,
right, inevitable, and above all, incapable of
being changed.
sociobiologist today makes the statement
"Man is genetically predisposed to warfare,"
he is making an assertion of fact, not a value
judgment. He is furthermore making a
statement which, given enough time and
research, is capable of being empirically either
-verified or disproved. Needless to say, empiri-.
cal proofs aro.the basis of all scientific knowl-
edge.
WHAT OF "sociobiologists" who do actually
claim that because warfare, indoctrinability,
and present ethical values are based in man's
genes, these phenomena are therefore justifi-
I
.. 1 1
10,
,," 1 lb
v may- ..rt ,. " .. . 'C.lr +++ .. i ' 7
i
ethics, which uncritically concludes that
what is, should be. The "what is" in
human nature is to a large extent the
heritage of a Pleistocene hunter-gath-
erer existence. When any genetic bias is
demonstrated, it cannot be used, to justify
a continuing practice in present and
future societies ... For example, the ten-
dency under certain conditions to con-
duct warfare against competing groups
might well be in our genes, having been
advantageous to our Neolithic ancestors,
but it could lead to global suicide now. To
rear as many healthy children as
possible was long the road to security,
yet with the population of the world brim-
ming over, it is now the way to envi-
ronmental disaster.
Some opposition to sociobiology definitely
has arisen not because the doctrines of the sci-
ence are innately bad, but because the doc-
trines could be misapplied, as is the case of
those who use sociobiology to justify their own
perverted morality. Yet cannot almost all sci-
entific knowledge be misapplied if it falls into
the wrong hands? And who is to blame for such
an event, the scientist, or the man who
promotes the misapplication? When the bow
and arrow was invented in prehistoric times, it
was a great aid for man in obtaining food. Soon,
however, the weapon was undoubtedly being
used to kill people in inter-tribal disputes.
Should the inventor of the bow and arrow be
condemned just because his invention was used
for evil purposes? Likewise, when Orville and
Wilbur Wright developed the first airplane in
more modern times, it was an invention which
promised (and has delivered) some great ad-
vances for mankind. But it must be recalled
that only a short time span existed between the
invention of the airplane and its first military
application in World War I. Later, the military
airplane was further developed for use in the
strategic bombing of the.Second World War,
including the horrendous attacks on Dresden,
Horoshima, and Nagasaki. Should we con-
demn the Wright brothers?
IT IS MY opinion that the discoverers of
knowledge and the creators of technology are
not deserving of blame when their work is used
for evil rather than good. The evil in the world
can be traced to men, not to science. In that all
branches of science can bring about progress
and solutions for mankind's problems, all
scientists deserve our most vigorous support.
As for those men who wish to use science for
evil and destruction, they deserve only con-
tempt, scorn, and abuse.
A final point is that there is no sure-fire
method of predicting which branches of science
will produce the greatest advances for man-
kind. This must especially be taken into con-
sideration when judging sociobiology. Groups
such as Science for the People, which have
condemned sociobiology as a discipline which
can only lead to evil applications, have com-
pletely overlooked the promise sociobiology
holds for man. We live in a world on the brink of
nuclear cremation, and if the root of nIan's
seemingly incessant desire for destruction is
not found soon, there will be no future oppor-
tunity to use science either for or against the
people anyway. If sociobiology can give the
I -- --
IN ALL FAIRNESS to Wilson, it must be said
that out of the 27 chapters and almost 700 pages
in Sociobiology, only the last chapter, which
deals with human social behavior, has come
under general criticism. The other 26 chapters,
dealing almost exclusively with the social
behavior of non-human organisms, have
largely escaped attack. In the final chapter of
Sociobiology, Wilson makes various statemen-
ts concerning what influences he feels genes
have over human behavior. He hypothesizes,
for example, that man could have a genetic
predisposition to warfare, as hunting groups in
the, past which had a gene-based tendency to
wine out competing hunting grouns would have
More specifically, opponents of sociobiology
have claimed that when sociobiologists make a
statemenlike "Man is genetically predisposed
to warfare," what sociobiologists are ieally
saying is "War is justifiable, inevitable, good,'
and right." Yet is this what sociobiology is tell-
ing us? Is simply asserting a fact the same as
making a judgment about it? Not at all. When
one says something like "Tom killed Harry,"
one is making a statement of fact, not of value.
It is only when one says something like "It was
wrong for Tom to have killed Harry" or "It was
good that Tom killed Harry" that the morality
of Tom's action comes into question. In the
same way, when Darwin hypothesized that
able, inevitable, good, and right? Perhaps the
man who makes such a statement should not
even be considered a sociobiologist or scientist,
at least during the time he is making such an
assertion. In their work, scientists deal only
with hypotheses which are empirically verifi-
able or refutable. Until man discovers some
way to comihunicate with the Creator of the
Universe (if such a being exists), statements
like "A is right" or "B is good" cannot be con-
sidered to fall into the "empirically verifiable
or refutable" category. Therefore, when a man
says, "War, indoctrinability, and present ethi-
cal values are justifiable, inevitable, good, and
right," he speaks as a moral philosopher, not a