Science for the People

As Gods: A Moral History of the Genetic Age
by Matthew Cobb
Published 15 Nov 2022

(but Whitey’s on the moon) In the United States, university departments that undertook military research became a focus of protest as radical young scientists set up a loose group called Science for the People. One of their main targets was the staid American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) – from 1969 to 1971, Science for the People members regularly disrupted AAAS meetings, holding alternative sessions, street theatre events and generally aping some of the features of Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution. As one Science for the People leaflet from 1970 put it, referring to AAAS attendees: ‘They are not here to educate us. We’re here to educate them.’4 For some of those protestors, power came from the end of a test tube.

…

He turned down the invitation because he did not work on recombinant DNA and felt it would be inappropriate to give lessons to colleagues who did. Instead, he suggested his place be given to Science for the People activist Jon Beckwith, to provide an alternative point of view. Beckwith in turn declined, refusing to play the role of the token critic. No other member of Science for the People was considered both appropriate and available, so no radical dissenting voice was heard. Science for the People issued an open letter to the meeting signed by Beckwith and others, but it contained little that would have altered the views of those attending, nor did it make any useful suggestions about how to proceed, beyond arguing for more involvement of laboratory staff and non-scientists, and more discussions.50 As scientists and journalists assembled at the Pacific Grove conference centre – once a YWCA facility, with a converted chapel, all golden wooden beams, serving as the conference hall – the weather took a turn for the better.

…

In the discussion, psychologist Tim Shallice – then a representative of the radical wing of BSSRS, now an FRS – dismissed Bronowski’s proposal as ‘a prize example of liberal claptrap’. There were even occasional interjections of ‘balls’ and ‘bullshit’ from the audience at various points.35 Writing in the US magazine Science for the People, Beckwith later repeated Jim Watson’s suggestion at the meeting that scientists should begin a dialogue to educate the world’s citizens, but followed Watson’s words with a classic piece of seventies radical-speak: ‘Right on! Science for the People!’36 Programme of the November 1970 BSSRS meeting on ‘The Social Impact of Modern Biology’. Looking back, it is striking that there was very little discussion at the meeting about how to respond to the possibility of genetically engineered organisms.

Artificial Whiteness
by Yarden Katz

This was part of broader resistance among scientists, notably physicists, to Reagan’s Star Wars program and related initiatives. See Sigrid Schmalzer, Daniel S. Chard, and Alyssa Botelho, Science for the People: Documents from America’s Movement of Radical Scientists, Science/Technology/Culture Series (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2018), 79–83.   69.   Joseph Weizenbaum, “Computers in Uniform: A Good Fit?,” Science for the People 17, no. 1 (1985): 26–29.   70.   As Weizenbaum put it, “If a student were to come to an AI laboratory and were to want to work on something that couldn’t be justified in these terms, that had nothing to do with these things I have been speaking of, it is not that the money couldn’t conceivably be found, but that the supervisors couldn’t be found because the whole laboratory is already soaked up by this enormous effort.”   71.   

…

For instance, Terry Winograd (at Stanford University) and Joseph Weizenbaum (at MIT), both influential figures within AI, have made it a point to refuse military funding.67 Weizenbaum’s critique of militarism demonstrates our running theme of nebulosity: how AI’s flexible character lets it bend, through collaboration between AI practitioners and patrons, to military aims. Weizenbaum delivered his critique in an article in 1985 for the magazine of Science for the People (SFTP), an antiwar and anticapitalist group formed in the 1960s (figure 1.5).68 In the article, titled “Computers in Uniform: A Good Fit?,” Weizenbaum explained that the military presents its aims in terms vague enough to cover every branch of AI, and practitioners then formulate all their projects to fit within the militaristic frame.

…

Practitioners questioned whether their computing systems would actually be useful to the military or whether computer-controlled weapons may pose a risk to the soldiers that wield them.72 Others raised concerns regarding the “explainability” of AI systems: How would the military make sense of the actions taken by AI-driven weapons systems? FIGURE 1.5  Figure from Joseph Weizenbaum, “Computers in Uniform: A Good Fit?,” Science for the People magazine, 1985. Illustration by Ray Valdes. Despite the field’s general subservience to the powers that be, in the late 1980s AI’s nebulosity became a sore point again in mainstream discussions. HAUNTED BY AMBIGUITIES The alliance between AI and empire lent the endeavor temporary coherence.

Data Action: Using Data for Public Good
by Sarah Williams
Published 14 Sep 2020

Peters, “BP and Officials Block Some Coverage of Gulf Oil Spill,” New York Times, June 9, 2010, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10access.html. 34 Patrik Jonsson, “Gulf Oil Spill: Al Gore Slams BP for Lack of Media Access,” Christian Science Monitor, June 15, 2010, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0615/Gulf-oil-spill-Al-Gore-slams-BP-for-lack-of-media-access. 35 Dorothy L. Hodgson and Richard A. Schroeder, “Dilemmas of Counter-Mapping Community Resources in Tanzania,” Development and Change 33, no. 1 (2002): 79–100, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00241. 36 The Crowd & The Cloud, “DIY Science for the People: Q&A with Public Lab's Jeff Warren,” Medium (blog), March 27, 2017, https://medium.com/@crowdandcloud/diy-science-for-the-people-q-a-with-public-labs-jeff-warren-c45b6689a228. 37 Anya Groner, “Healing the Gulf with Buckets and Balloons,” Guernica, September 8, 2016, https://www.guernicamag.com/anya-groner-healing-the-gulf-with-buckets-and-balloons/. 38 Public Lab Contributors, “Balloon Mapping Kit,” n.d., https://store.publiclab.org/collections/featured-kits/products/mini-balloon-mapping-kit?

…

“While Improving, City's Air Quality Crisis Quietly Persists.” Gotham Gazette, June 19, 2014. http://www.gothamgazette.com/government/5111-while-improving-quiet-crisis-air-quality-persists-new-york-city-asthma-air-pollution. Crowd & The Cloud, The. “DIY Science for the People: Q&A with Public Lab's Jeff Warren.” Medium (blog), March 27, 2017. https://medium.com/@crowdandcloud/diy-science-for-the-people-q-a-with-public-labs-jeff-warren-c45b6689a228. Currid, Elizabeth, and Sarah Williams. “The Geography of Buzz: Art, Culture and the Social Milieu in Los Angeles and New York.” Journal of Economic Geography 10, no. 3 (2009): 423–451.

A Theory of the Drone
by Gregoire Chamayou
Published 23 Apr 2013

EPILOGUE On War, from a Distance The text that you are about to read dates from 1973. At this time, the U.S. military, beginning to learn lessons from its Vietnam experience, was working on schemes to produce armed drones. A number of young scientists engaged in the antiwar movement put out a slender militant review, Science for the People. They were aware of these military research programs and produced the following anticipatory article, warning of the perils involved: After the Air War a new form of warfare will appear much as the Air War succeeded the Ground War. We can call it the Remote War. . . . The central concept to Remote War is the remotely manned system, abbreviated RMS, which usually includes a remotely manned vehicle, RMV.

…

Estienne de La Boétie, Anti-Dictator: The Discours sur la servitude volontaire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), 11. 33. Hannah Arendt, On Violence (New York: Harcourt, 1970), 151. 34. Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1972), 229. Epilogue 1. “Toys Against the People, or Remote Warfare,” Science for the People Magazine 5, no. 1 (May 1973): 8–10, 37–42. 2. Ibid., 42. INDEX Note: Page numbers in italics indicate figures. Abbottabad, Pakistan, 141 Abraham, Karl, 111–12 accountability, 149, 210–12 accuracy. See precision Achilles, 73, 74 activity-based intelligence (ABI), 48–49 Addams, Jane “The Revolt Against War,” 104 Adorno, Theodor, 206, 207 Minima Moralia, 205 aerial power contemporary doctrines of, 54 imperialism and, 53–54 aerial sovereignty, crisis of, 54 aerial video surveillance, 34 aerial weaponry, 60–61 counterinsurgency and, 60–64 demoralization of insurgency with, 62 precision and, 62–63 as terror, 62–63 theoretical marginalization of, 61 as weapons of state terrorism, 62–63 affect, 208, 242–43n1 Afghanistan, 13, 28, 50, 62, 130 See also specific locations aggression, spectrum of, 115–16, 116 AGM-114 Hellfire, 141–42 Airforce-Technology.com, 108 airwaves, mastery over, 75–76 Ajax, 73 al-Awlaki, Anwar, 239n27 Albright, Madeleine, 186 Algeria, French bombardment of, 65 al-Qaeda, 50, 171 Alston, Philip, 167–68, 173 Altman, Jürgen, 272n20 Amanullah, Zabet, 50 American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), 110–11 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 31 American Society of International Law, 167 Amnesty International, 128 Anderson, Kenneth, 170, 171–72, 173, 239n31 Andres, Richard, 71 Angoulême, Duke of, 217 annihilation, 37–45 anomalies, detection of, 42–44 anticipation, preemptive, 42–44 anti-drone clothing, 204 anti-drone movements, 14 antiterrorism paradigm counterinsurgency and, 67–68 as counterproductive, 70–72 enemy and, 68–69 as individual-centered, 68–69 manhunting and, 69 as Manichean, 68, 69 as moralizing, 69 politics and, 69, 70–71 antiwar movement, 2, 184, 192, 200–202, 223–27 applied military ethics, 162–63 archiving, 39–41, 49 Arendt, Hannah, 64, 139, 205, 219, 240n14 Argus, 43 ARGUS-IS wide-area surveillance, 40, 236n26 Arkin, Ronald, 207–8, 213, 216, 218, 272n19, 273n30 armed conflict zones classical notion of, 57, 58 enemy body as battlefield, 56–58 geocentric view of, 57 as geographically defined, 57, 58 globalization of, 57–59 homogenization of, 57–59 international law and, 58–59 as mobile, 57–58 armed violence globalization of, 52 revolutionary Marxist understanding of, 67 verticalization of, 166 See also combat; law of armed conflict; warfare Asad, Talal, 88, 94, 243n10 Asaro, Peter, 272n20 assassination, 196, 199 ethics of, 155–57, 158–59 state–subject relations and, 196–97 targeted, 14, 17–18, 32, 171–72, 239n31 See also killing Associated Press, 106 asymmetrical warfare, 13, 24, 33, 61–62, 75, 127, 162–63, 264–66n17 historical antecedents, 92–95 imperialism and, 127 psychological effects of, 94–95 automata, fabrication of political, 205–21.

…

See accountability retributive justice, 210, 243n11 “The Revolt Against War” (Addams), 104 revolutionary warfare, theories of, 66 rhythm analysis, 43 right, of pursuit, 53 right of war, 181–83 rights asymmetrical, 264–66n17 discourse on, 198 See also specific rights rights of pursuit, 53 right to equal combat, 264–66n17 right to kill, 17, 160–62, 198, 264–66n17, 268n1 mechanical agents and, 209–10 reciprocity and, 163–64, 165 unilateral, 164–65 right to life, 198 right to the possibility of combat, 264–66n17 risk, 103 externalization of, 188–89 principle of unnecessary, 137 See also vulnerabilities roboethicists, 209, 212–13, 218 roboticists, 215 robots, 205–21, 271n6, 272n19, 272n20, 273–74n31 empathy and, 273–74n31 ethical, 209–13, 215, 217 fascism and, 205 obedience and, 217–18, 273n30 robocops, 219, 220, 221 war crimes committed by, 210–12 See also telearchics rogue states, 53 Rohde, David, 44 Rose, Jacqueline, 88 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 179 Royal Air Force (RAF), 63 rubber bullets, 203 Rumsfeld, Donald, 32, 55, 196 Ryan Aeronautical, 27 sacrifice, 86, 97–98, 101, 103, 180–81, 187 dialectic of, 179 ethic of heroic, 86–88 techniques of, 83–84 warfare without, 181 safety observers, 2, 7–9 safe zone, 77 Salisbury (Robert Gascoyne-Cecil), Lord, 187 sanctuarization, 232n5 sanctuary, denial of, 53 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 200 scalar modulation, 56 Scarry, Elaine, 13 schematization of forms of life, 42 Schmitt, Carl, 61, 165–66, 178, 179, 183 Schörnig, Niklas, 192 science fiction, 213 Science for the People, 223–27 Scout drones, 27–28 scribe-machines, 41 security measures, 35 security state, 178–81 self-deception, 240n14 self-defense, right to, 159–60, 162–63, 165, 167–68, 169, 172–73, 196, 266n4 self-preservation, 12, 84, 86–88, 97–98, 100–101, 137 See also preservation of life sensor operators, 1–9 Serbia, 127–28, 130 SGR-1 robots, 271n6 Shadow Hawk drones, 203 Shane, Scott, 146 Sharkey, Noel, 215, 272n20, 273n26 Shin Bet, 131 Siegfried, 73 sighting, 114 See also military vision; surveillance signals interception of, 34, 75–76 latency of, 74–75 signature strikes, 47, 51 Silver, Beverly, 191, 192–93 SIM card data, 50 Singer, Peter W., 231n14 Wired for War, 214–15 “smart bombs,” 138 snipers, 255–56n22 social contract theories, 177–78 social defense, 35 Social Network Analysis (SNA), 34, 49, 51 social networks, 34, 42, 47–48, 50 Sofaer, Abraham, 172 software decision making and, 215–16 virtuous, 212 vulnerabilities of, 76 See also programming soldiers double standard of warfare and, 259n28 emotional involvement of, 254–55n12 psychic vulnerability of, 103–5 robots as, 207–8 scorn toward drone operators, 106–7 sensitivity of, 254–55n12 transition from war to peace and, 119–20 victims and, 103–5, 115–16 as victims of the violence they are forced to commit, 103–5 vocabulary of, 198 vulnerability of, 76–77, 154 See also combatants Somalia, 13, 58–59, 128 sovereigns, 183, 186, 263n4, 268n1 See also sovereignty sovereignty, 17–18, 53–54, 177–84 aerial, 54 citizenship and, 183, 268n5 enigma of, 218 modern theory of, 18 preservation of life and, 182 protection and, 178–79, 183–84 protective, 178–79, 183–84, 194 right of war and, 181–82 security-based, 178, 180 as volumetric and three-dimensional, 54 war-waging, 177–84, 185–86 zoopolitical conception of, 182–83 Soviet Union, 27 space, 232n5 geospatial analysis, 48 hostile, 22–23 organization of, 22 safe, 22, 24 spatio-temporal graphs, 42 See also geography Sparrow, Robert, 272n20 spatio-temporal graphs, 42 specifications, 215–16 spectrum of aggression, 115–16, 116 sports broadcasters, 40 state apparatus automatization of, 218, 221 autonomization of the, 191 pilots and, 214 war machines and, 214 state(s), 15, 53 constitution of, 218–19 corporeal dependence of, 218–19, 221 in peace, 178 responsibility of, 210–11 self-defense and, 196 in war, 178 See also sovereignty; state apparatus; state–subject relations state–subject relations, 15, 18, 177–84 assassination and, 196–97 peace and, 177–84 protection and, 178–79 warfare and, 177–84 state terrorism, aerial weaponry as, 62–63 state violence, 31–32 strategy, 12, 13 strategic doctrine, 33 strategic intentionality, 16 Strawser, Bradley Jay, 136–38, 140, 164, 261n12 stress, 103 combat, 111 See also post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) strikes, effects of, 117 Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), 202 subcontracting, 192, 269n5 subjectivism, 199 subjectivity, relinquishing of political, 205–21 subjectlessness, 206–7 subject(s) death of the subject, 206–7 as products of the state, 182–83 state and, 177–84 subjectlessness and, 206–7 suffrage, 184 suicide bombers, 83–89 as fusion of body and weapon, 84 as human drones, 78–79 impossibility of punishing, 88, 243n11 surface-to-air missiles, 27–28 surveillance, 22–23, 28, 34, 37–45, 235n21 aerial, 34 archiving and, 39–41 cartographic tracking and, 42 domestic, 203–4 interception of, 75 optical, 39–41, 44, 114, 204 persistent, 38 perspectives, 39 precision and, 143–45 proximity and, 116–17 of strikes’ effects, 117 video surveillance cameras, 44, 204 See also profiling; tracking suspicion, 145 synoptic viewing, 38–39 Syria, 27–28 Taliban, 70, 87 target drones, 26 targeted assassination, 14, 17–18, 32, 239n31 targeting, 114–26 selective, 49 targets, 261–62n2 adaptation by, 74–75 citizenship and, 239n27 discrimination among, 137–38, 142–47 presumption of guilt and, 146 specification of, 215–16 status of, 144–45 targeting criteria (see also profiling), 142–47 Taser-style rounds, 203 taxation, 181–82 tear gas, 203 technical analysis, 15 technical determinism, 16 technicians, responsibility of, 210–11 technology demilitarization of, 78 humanitarian, 135–39, 146, 148, 189–90 of manipulation at a distance, 21 military as laboratory for experimentation, 203–4 morality and, 135–39 See also specific technologies telearchics, 231–32n4 telechiric machines, 21–24, 22 tele-operators, 256–59n23 telephones, 247–54n8 interception of calls, 47–48, 50 tele-presence, phenomenal shifting and, 256–59n23 tele-technologies, 247–54n8 See also specific technologies television, 85 The Terminator (Cameron), 213 territorial control, verticalization of, 53–54, 66–67 territorial integrity, 53 terror, 62–63 terrorism.

Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think
by Alan Grafen; Mark Ridley
Published 1 Jan 2006

For the general public, at least in the United States, and for parts of the academic community as well, Wilson and Dawkins represented the same type of politically suspect ‘bad’ science. Sociobiology was nothing but old ideology masquerading as purportedly new science, stated the Sociobiology Study Group, the leading American group of critics associated with Science for the People. This group went as far as challenging the readers of Science to ‘look for themselves’ to find the obvious political messages of sociobiology. In other words, whatever Wilson and Dawkins themselves as scientists had wanted to achieve with their books had been effectively subverted by the critics, who turned the issue into a moral and political one.

…

In relation to both Sociobiology and The Selfish Gene the critics employed a particular reading strategy which always yielded results (I have called this ‘moral reading’).22 The aim was to imagine the worst possible social or moral implications of selected sentences in the book. These then justified their condemnation. While the American Science for the People were quite good at this (with Wilson’s colleagues Gould and Lewontin among the initiators of the fault-finding effort), Dawkins’ particular nemesis was Britain’s Steven Rose. Rose enjoyed taking abstract statements about strategies from Dawkins, applying them to humans and then condemning the author for justifying socially unacceptable behaviors (Dawkins once characterized Rose’s misreading of him as ‘a wanton will to misunderstand’).

The Jasons: The Secret History of Science's Postwar Elite
by Ann Finkbeiner
Published 26 Mar 2007

Schwartz spent one summer…but was not asked to return: Charles Schwartz, interview by Finn Aaserud, AIP, May 15, 1987, 9. A few years later his brother was killed…or SESPA: Ibid., 36, 56–57. SESPA’s initial announcement…“and political freedom”: Charles Schwartz, “A Skeletal Archive of Science for the People: Call for the First Meeting,” online at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Eschwrtz/SftP/Contents.html. “Now, within Jason…identified as war criminals”: Charles Schwartz, interview by Finn Aaserud, AIP, May 15, 1987, 69. In 1972 SESPA published Science Against the People…the Jasons talked openly: SESPA, Story of Jason.

A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Writings
by Richard Dawkins
Published 1 Jan 2004

Gould’s collection begins to bear comparison with P. B. Medawar’s immortal The Art of the Soluble. And if his style does not quite make the reader chortle with delight and rush out to show somebody – anybody – the way Medawar’s does, Gould is to be thanked for some memorable lines. No doubt puritan killjoys of Science for ‘The People’ will denounce the vivid and helpful anthropomorphism in ‘Reproduce like hell while you have the ephemeral resource, for it will not last long and some of your progeny must survive to find the next one.’ But on second thoughts they may be too busy plotting the abolition of slavery in ants, or brooding over the deviationism of: Natural selection dictates that organisms act in their own self-interest … They ‘struggle’ continuously to increase the representation of their genes at the expense of their fellows.

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century
by Ronald Bailey
Published 20 Jul 2015

Cavalieri asserted, among other horrors, that gene splicing could lead to accidental outbreaks of infectious cancer. “In the case of recombinant DNA, it is an all or none situation—only one accident is needed to endanger the future of mankind,” he warned. Also in 1976, Alfred Vellucci, the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts, guided by the left-leaning group Science for the People, wanted to ban gene-splicing research in his city. Of course, Cambridge is home to Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “We want to be damned sure the people of Cambridge won’t be affected by anything that could crawl out of that laboratory,” Vellucci told The New York Times.

How the Mind Works
by Steven Pinker
Published 1 Jan 1997

Wilson was doused with a pitcher of ice water at a scientific convention, and students yelled for his dismissal over bullhorns and put up posters urging people to bring noisemakers to his lectures. Angry manifestos and book-length denunciations were published by organizations with names like Science for the People and The Campaign Against Racism, IQ, and the Class Society. In Not in Our Genes, Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin dropped innu-endos about Donald Symons’ sex life and doctored a defensible passage of Richard Dawkins’ into an insane one. (Dawkins said of the genes, “They created us, body and mind”; the authors have quoted it repeatedly as “They control us, body and mind.”)

…

The knife that separates causal explanations of behavior from moral responsibility for behavior cuts both ways. In the latest twist in the human-nature morality play, a chromosomal marker for homosexuality in some men, the so-called gay gene, was identified by the geneticist Dean Hamer. To the bemusement of Science for the People, this time it is the genetic explanation that is politically correct. Supposedly it refutes right-wingers like Dan Quayle, who had said that homosexuality “is more of a choice than a biological situation. It is a wrong choice.” The gay gene has been used to argue that homosexuality is not a choice for which gay people can be held responsible but an involuntary orientation they just can’t help.

The Ape That Understood the Universe: How the Mind and Culture Evolve
by Steve Stewart-Williams
Published 12 Sep 2018

L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1996). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Changizi, M. (2011). Harnessed: How language and music mimicked nature and transformed ape to man. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books. Chasin, B. (1977). Sociobiology: A sexist synthesis. Science for the People, 9, 27–31. Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How monkeys see the world: Inside the mind of another species. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

Doing Harm: The Truth About How Bad Medicine and Lazy Science Leave Women Dismissed, Misdiagnosed, and Sick
by Maya Dusenbery
Published 6 Mar 2018

Frederick Hollick, The Diseases of Woman, Their Causes and Cure Familiarly Explained (New York: Excelsior Publishing House, 1849), quoted in Ehrenreich and English, For Her Own Good, 132. “give woman all her characteristics . . . G. L. Austin, Perils of American Women or A Doctor’s Talk with Maiden, Wife, and Mother (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1883), quoted in Rita Arditti, “Women as Objects: Science and Sexual Politics,” Science for the People, September 1974, 9. For a good decade leading up to the twentieth century . . . Ben Barker-Benfield, “The Spermatic Economy: A Nineteenth Century View of Sexuality,” Feminist Studies 1, no. 1 (Summer 1972), 45–74, quoted in Ehrenreich and English, For Her Own Good, 136. “the destroyer of everything . . .

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
Published 1 Jan 2002

John Maynard Smith, a senior British evolutionary biologist and former Marxist, said that he disliked the last chapter of Sociobiology himself and “it was also absolutely obvious to me—I cannot believe Wilson didn’t know—that this was going to provoke great hostility from American Marxists, and Marxists everywhere.” But it was true…. In 1975 I was a political naïf: I knew almost nothing about Marxism as either a political belief or a mode of analysis, I had paid little attention to the dynamism of the activist left, and I had never heard of Science for the People. I was not even an intellectual in the European or New York–Cambridge sense.4 As we shall see, the new sciences of human nature really do resonate with assumptions that historically were closer to the right than to the left. But today the alignments are not as predictable. The accusation that these sciences are irredeemably conservative comes from the Left Pole, the mythical place from which all directions are right.