The Michigan Daily
Edited and managed by Students at the
University of Michigan
Friday, May 27, 1977
News Phone: 764-0552
Rhodes: Letting students
in on the candidates
OPEN DECISION-MAKING is certainly not one of the
University's stronger points.
In fact, most administrative decisions are kept un-
der wraps, and not a soul outside the "privileged few"
knows which topics are even under discussion, much less
the tone of such discussions. The horizon is quiet, un-
til some press release is issued, lauding the latest de-
velopment.
Just one of those decisions in the making is Frank
Rhodes' replacement.
Rhodes, vice-president of academic affairs, will leave
In June to assume the presidency of Cornell University.
And nobody knows just what kind of character will fill
his position.
As the head honcho for academic affairs, the new
person would have the largest voice (short of the Re-
gents) its such things as major curriculum changes, over-
all graduation requirements, gradual phase-outs of whole
departments and even faculty salaries, just to cite a few
responsibilities.
Although such things are of deep concern to most
students, there will probably be but a shred of general
.student input into making the decision.
AT LAST REPORT a search committee had been set
up. The committee, behind closed doors (in smoke--
filled rooms?) would narrow the list of applicants un-
known to the general populace of the campus, and pre-
sent a short list to President Robben Fleming.
The list of course would not be released. Fleming,
at another in a long train of executive sessions at Re-
gents meetings, would open the envelope, and present
the candidate of his choice.
It is ridiculous that students have been presented
with no list of possible candidates to scrutinize and
comment upon.
Especially in decisions such as this do the Regents
and the Administration have the responsibility to let
us all in on all 'possible choices.

THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL
My solution? Good grief, man! Can't you see I've
got my hands full?'
Scientists lose say to politicians

By PETER BLAISDELL
Although scientific development has accelera-
ted greatly in the last half-century, stirring
clouds of comments, little .has been said about
the persons making decisions regarding the use
of scientific advances,
Such decisions, which can affect the whole
of society, are too often made with little input
from the scientists themselves.
From genetics to nuclear physics, from as-
tronomy to metallurgy, examples of the lack of
scientific input into decisions to apply each of
these sciences can be found.
An obvious example is the currently contro-
versial recombitant DNA research.

Letters to, the Daily

gay catholics
To The Daily:
A brief lesson in New Testament teachings on homo-
sexuality for the befuddled Gay Catholics (Letters, 17
April) who seem to think Christ's emphasis on brotherly
love requires Christians to hold fellowship with sexual
perverts who choose to wallow in their perversion. The
Apostle Paul is unequivocal. "Do you not know that the
unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not
be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor drunk-
ards, nor revilers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the
greedy, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God"
(I Corinthians 6: 9-10; Revised Standard Version). And
again, "For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven
against all ungodliness and wickedness of men, who by
their wickedness suppress the truth ... Therefore, God gave
them up in the lusts of their own hearts to impurity, to
the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves: be-
cause they changed the truth about God into a lie ... For
this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions.
Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with wom-
en and were consumed with passion for one another, men
committing shameless acts with men and receiving in
their own persons the due penalty for their errors ...
Though they know God's decree that those who do such
things deserve to die, they not only do them but ap-
prove those who practice them" (Romans 1: 18, 24-27, 32),
The early Christians seem to have been tempted less
to the perversion of sexuality than to the irresponsible use
of sexuality outside the covenant of marriage, and hence
the teachings of Christ (Matthew 5: 27-30; 15: 19-20),
Peter (II Peter 2), James (Acts: 19-20, 28-29), John (I

heterosexual sin. But their passage applies with at least
equal force to homosexual perversion, as the references
of Peter and Jude to Sodom and Gommorrah attest.
The message is clear and uncompromising. While the
repentant will be forgiven, through Christ's atonement,
for such sin (John 8: 11), the unrepentant are eternally
damned (Matthew 7: 21-27). And faithful Christians are
to have no -fellowship with the obstinately unrepentant,
even if they call themselves Christian "brethren." (I
Corinthians 5: 9-13; II Timothy 3: 1-6).
My anonymous adversaries have chosen purposefully
to misunderstand the brief story about my skunk-chasing
dog, designed merely to show that one may love a sin-
ner -- honestly and deeply - yet find the sin so repul-
sive (correctly) one shuns that person until he shows
himself willing to be cleansed of it. The dishonest, super-
ficial, and heavy-handed attack on my illustration would
condemn Christ himself (Matthew 15:26) and the Apostle
Peter, whose words bear careful consideration: "For if,
after they have escaped the defilements of the world
through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpow-
ered, the last state has become worse for them than the
first. For it would have been better for them never to.
have known the way of righteousness than after knowing
it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered
unto them. It has happened according to the true proverb,
The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is
washed only to wallow in the mire" (II Peter 2: 20-22).
So, my gay adversaries, let us repent together - you
of your sins and I of mine. But let us not for one moment
pretend that the Lord (personally or through His Apostles)
has clearly called sinful, perverse, and disgusting is or
should be acceptable to Him or to anyone who sincerely
loves Him.
-- Gregory S. Hill

TO BE SURE, in 1974 the researchers a
posed a moratorium on further experimensss:on
with DNA until possible dangers of prodsing
new micro-organisms to which Man has'; a os
ural immunity could be examined. But thst ws
the exception to the rule. University and gm rs
ment administrators, not scientists, msd, the
decision to resume recombinant DNA re rah,
and in 1976, they formulated guidelines to ega-
late the research.
The frequent Food and Dcug Admiss:>;rtio
(FDA) hearings to determinethe safetya ce
for the annual barrage of new drugs oftir sr-
eral other examples.
Whenever scientific research reaches a cer
tain level of social significance, the major deci-
sions concerning its possible use are sntched
from the hands of the researchers, and slaced
in those of government officials, or business ad-
ministrators. Those laypersons decide how best
to apply the research, and which parts of the
population could benefit from the research.
THE DECISIONS to clear some of these drugs
for public consumption easily degenerate into
court battles between advertising executives, law-
yers, and pressure groups, none of which have
carefully assessed the properties of the drug. Such
groups are more interested in monetary or com-
mercial gain. The actual developers of the drugs
probably had little voice in the decision to re-
lease the drug.
The small role scientists play in determining
how their work would be implemented is, in part,
because the bulk of their research grants come
from the government, large institutions or cOr
porations - places where relatively few research-
ers hold top positions.
And the scientists' voice might also be quelled
by an affected attitude of some people in the
sciences that a researcher should be divorced
from the consequences - good or bad - of the
work.
But the biggest reason is that the training
of scientists places almost all emphasis on an'
alysis of sets of information rather than the more
subjective judgments which concern the probable
uses of the research.
THE LAST 25 YEARS show as science cOn-
tinues to advance more quickly, the time to make
the decisions about the implementation of the
research shortens.
Society is also discovering the arcane theories
and techniques developed in the sciences have
become more relevant in areas such as energ,
health and the quality of life.
It is of paramount importance that the Poe'
ple who know the most about specific aspects
of new developments should retain the great
eat input into the final decisions concerning the