LSD IN THIS ISSUE:

GEOTHERMAL:TAPPING THEARE DOWN BROW

CHLORINE ON TRIAL

BETTER UVINGTHROUGH ICRAP,IIIH, AND PICILE UQUOR:THE GREENING OF

I Y

Givethe Gift of Knowledge!with Technology Review BooksTechnology Review books explore andexplain, fascinate and delight. Readers youngand old will welcome these carefully chosentitles to their library-as well as the learningthat only great books can give!

My First Science Book

by Angela Wilkes

Kids can learn about theweather by making a raingauge, barometer, and windvane, or test acidity and alka-linity with their own litmustest. Includes instructionswith color photographs, andclear explanations of whythings happen. Over a dozenexperiments.

Ages 6-10 Hardcover,48 pages,$13.00

200 Gooey, Slippery,Slimy Experiments

by Janice VanCleave

Zany, wacky, entertaining,this book engages children'simaginations while answer-ing their favorite questionsabout the environment.Your kids will have so muchfun conducting these 100%fool-proof experimentsthey'll forget they're learning.

Ages 8-12, Paperback, 113pages,$12.00

The Complete Handbookof Science Fair Projects

by Julianne Blair Bochin ki

The only book you'll needfor selecting, preparing, andpresenting award-winningscience fair projects. Wrinenby a veteran contestant andjudge, this step-by-step guidedescribes 50 projects indetail and uggests 500 othertopics suitable forgrades 7 and up.

Ages 12and up, Paperback,206pages,$12.95

The Children'sStep-by-Step Cookbook

by Angela Wilkes

Bill Nye The ScienceGuy's Big Blast of Science

by Bill Nye

A highly cool handbook forthe laws of nature frommolecules to the Milky Way.With science projects andawesome fun for everyone.Bill Nye the Science Guyknows how cool science canbe! After all, everything inthe universe involves science.You already think scientifically every day, even ifyou don't know it!Ages 10-14, Paperback,171pages,$12.95

\

Toys in Space

by Dr. Carolyn Sumners

Filled with dozens of toy-building activities that simu-late experiments NASAastronauts perform on spaceshuttle missions.

~: ,.i -~'.~;:' * -~,. l:t :#"'.. t·~ .:••"'-DR.CMOt.n.tIt.lMt«RS''''_ ..":.:':"'':''-''::':'='::::'~

The first cooking course foraspiring young cooks, withpage after page of mouthwatering dishes. More than50 easy-ro-follow recipesthat are fun to make anddelicious to eat! Clear srep-by-step photographs showeach stage of the recipe.Beautiful photographic cooking lessons.

Ages4-12, Hardcover, 128pages,$18.95

Math for Every Kid

by Janice VarrCleave

Ages 12to adult, 78pages,$10.95

Sportworks

Jm\\InLbw's

MATHfor Every Kid

c.,..........a-".u--., __,.

Easy activities that makelearning math fun! Packedwith illustrations, Math forEvery Kid uses simple prob-lems and activities to teachkid about measurements,fractions, graphs, geometryfigures, problemsolving and more!

by the Ontario Science CentreIllustrated by Pat Cupples

Why does a curve ballcurve? What makes a goodfootball helmet? How dofigure skaters spin so fast,and don't they get dizzy?You find answers to thesesports mysteries and muchmore in this fun-filled bookby the world-famous Ontario Science Centre.

Ages 8-12, Paperback,96 pages,$8.95

Science Wizardryfor Kids

by Margaret Kenda &Phyllis S. Williams

Ages 8-12, Paperback,215pages,$10.95

175 MoreScience Experiments

by Terry Cash, Steve Parker,& Barbara Taylor

More than 200 authentic,safe experiments that useeveryday, inexpensive mate-rials. Kids will get to knowthe thrill of discovery bylooking at their immediateworld: making toy boats,brewing sun tea, growingviolets, collecting rocks. Includes step-by-stepin tructions and glo sary.Ages 9-12,Spiral-bound, 316pages,$13.95

A sequel to the popular175Science Experiments,thisbook brings further enjoy-ment to curious kids. Withinfour main sections--Sound,Electricity, Simple Chem-istry, and Weather-it pro-vides a lively menu of experi-ments, trick, andthings to make.Ages 8-12. Paperback, 172pages,$12.00

Around the World

Edited by Roger E. Axtell

1Ollsfu~ring~dehe~sthousands of high-poweredexecutives and tourists avoidthe missteps and misunder-standings that plague theworld traveler. It includesfacts and tips on protocol,customs, etiquette, hand ges-tures, body language, idioms,and gift-giving.

Paperback, 200 pages, $12.95

xTaking Charge:

Fhc Electric Automobile ill America

by Michael Brian Schiffer

Discover the history andfuture promise of the electriccar in America. This bookrevisits the racebetween elec-tric and gas-powered cars inallits aspects, including the littleknown collaboration ofHenry Ford and ThomasEdison. Schiffer suggeststhatfor Americans it may be rimefor thefabled victory of thetortoise over thehare. Hardcover, 224 pages, $24.00

The Dictionary ofMisinformation

byTomBumam

A remarkable book thatcontains enoughinformation to help you winbets the rest of your life:London's Big Ben is neithera clock nor a tower, scoresof people had flown non-stop across the Atlanticbefore Lindbergh, and nowitches were burnedat Salem.Paperback,334 pages, $12.00

The Ultimate Paper Airplane

by Richard Kline

More than just a toy, theKline-Fogleman airfoilearned its inventors twopatents and was tested byNASA. Here is the storyof its creation, along withthe secrets behind itsunmatched performance.Plus, instructions andpatterns for makingseven different models.Paperback,126pages, $9.95

The Curious Cook

by Harold McGee

Hou- to Order

To order by phone call:

(617) 253-8292Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5p.m, EST.

Pleasehavecredit card information ready.

Or send this form with payment to:Technology Review Books

MIT W-59, Cambridge, MA 02139

View our WWW on-line catalog athttp://web.mit.eduJafslathenalorgltl

techreview/www/tr.html

IUIlI Ndl!~ ...~~..,.--TilE

~~~I~~

~ ~ ~ ~

How can you keep thegreen in guacamole andpesto sauce? What's thebest way to make fruit ices?Packed with fascinating sci-entific lore, The CuriousCook answers these ques-tions and more to help thehome cook make use of sci-entific discoveriesabout food.Paperback,339 pages, $13.00

~

"011'" e t'tcn e S 8CI Eser.A:orO I.ORE

Uty Tltlc I'I'/(C Tut,l/

ShippingI---

GrandTotal

'\,IITlll'

1 HA\JE &COME ONEwrrn ny Ca1PUTER.r HAVE REl\Cl1fD ...

/

'!\lERDVI\N,,"

22

TECHNOLOGY REvIEwJANUARY 1995

ContentsFEATURES-

22 SCOTT ADAMS:GADFLY OF THE HIGH-TECH WORKPLACEThe creator of the cornic strip "Dilbert" has made a career out oflampooning managers, marketers, and especially engineers stretched totheir levels of incompetence. In an interview, the hero of cubicle workerseverywhere shares his perceptions of a corporate culture that could use adose of common sense, greater respect for people, and a good laugh.

30 FROM VILLAIN TO HEROBYJULIAN SZEKELYAND GERARDO TRAPAGAPlants such as steel mills and cement kilns have long been been identi-fied with smokestack pollution and toxic waste. But by tapping its hard-won expertise in handling huge tonnages at high temperatures undercontrolled conditions, the materials industry is turning byproductsinto resources, cleaning up its own act as well as that of others.

38 TAPPING THE FIRE DOWN BELOWBY DAVID TENENBAUM

Geothermal energy, drawing on the abundant reserves of heat deep withinthe earth, is clean, renewable, reliable, and available virtually everywhere.But in the United States, at least, it has long been starved of the researchfunds that could allow us to economically tap its enormous potential.

48 IT'S 10 O'CLOCK-Do You KNow WHERE YOUR DATAARE?BY TERRY COOK

Today's computer-dependent offices must devise techniques, comparablein convenience and effectiveness to those traditionally used for paperdocuments, to better preserve electronic records. Otherwise, we are likelyto suffer a severe and debilitating case of institutional amnesia.

54 THE CHLORINE CONTROVERSYBY GORDON GRAFF

Chlorine is used in some 15,000 products with annual U.S.sales of $71 bil-lion. While it's unlikely that our reliance on this ubiquitous element willbe eliminated (as some critics urge) or even drastically reduced, principalplayers in government and industry are beginning to take steps to hastenthe phaseout of chlorine compounds linked to serious health effects.

COVER PHOTO: LIANE ENKELl.S 54

DEPARTMENTS

5 FIRsT LINE6 LETTERS

10 MIT REpORTERA Cure for Surgical Chaos; Modeling Ocean Waves

14 !RENDSLess-Than-Lethal Weapons; The Hunt for Black Holes;

10 Recycled Architecture; Computers and Dance

61 THE HUMANE ENGINEERSAMUEL C. FLORMANA routine ribbon-cutting ceremony takes on an inspirational quality, reveal-ing the nobler ends to which the pursuit of profitis often subtly devoted.

62 THE ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVEBENNETT HARRISONRecent research provides some surprising insights into why some regionsfoster technological innovation better than others-and why the Clintonadministration may be targeting the wrong clusters of companies.

/4

64 FORUMAMY BRUCKMANAs participation in the Net burgeons and computers become moreportable, it's all too easy to take our work wherever we go. An avid pro-ponent of the Information Age refreshes her spirit by cutting the cord.

66 REVIEWSStephen D. Solomon on the forces driving deregulation.John Wilkes on the technology and culture of drag racing.

72 PHENOMENAAnd Now the Farm Report

66

Technology Review (ISSN 0040-1692), Reg. U.S. Patent Office, is publtshed elght umeseach year (lanuary, February/March, April, MayJ)une,July, AugusUSeplember, October, and NovemberlDecember)by the Association of Alumni and Alumnae of the M31Sachusettl Institute of Technology, Entire contents© 1995, The ednors seek diverseViews, and authors' opinions do not represent the official policies oftheir instilutions or those of MIT. We welcome leuers to the editor, Pleaseaddress them 10 Leners Editor,do address below or by e-mail 10: .

Editorial, circulation, and advertising offices:Techllolo&'YRelliew, BUilding W59. MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, (617) 253-8250; FAX (617)258-7264. Printed by Lane Press, S. Burlington, vr.second-class postage paidat 8o61On, MA and additional mailing offices.Posmastensend address changes 10Ter.:hllologyReuie», MIT, Building W59, Cambridge, MA 02139, or e-mail to .

Subscriptions: $30 per year. Cmlada add $6, oIherforeign countries add $12,ContaelTechlloiogy Rmieu;P.O. Box 489, Mount Morris, IL61054, (BOO) 877-5230 or (815) 734-1116; FAX (815) 734-1127,ore-mail to .

Advertising representatives: Mark E.l.ynch, Eastern Sales Manager, 9 Salem Drive, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, (518) 583-6086; William R. Cook, National Accounts Manager, P.O. Box 973, Duxbury', MA02331, (617) 93+9714; The Leadel1ihip Network: KilO Paris. 200 Madison A"", New York, NY 10016. (212) 686-1734; Albaum, Maiorana& Associates, 418 W, 5th St, Royal Oak, MI 48067, (313) 546-2222Techllology Review'se-mail address:.PrimedinU.SA. W/ BPAWorld·Wi: visit our serv.. rat . "if __ ..

TECHNOLOGY REvIEwVOL. 981No.1

Managing Global, Econ.omic, andTechnological ChangeMIT Sloan School of Management

MIT Sloan Fellows ProgramOne-year Master's Degreein Management for Mid-Career Managers

ExecutiveEducationPrograms

MIT Management of Technology ProgramOne-year Master's Degreein Management of Technology for Mid-Career Managers

Program for Senior ExecutivesEight-week International Leadership Program for Senior Executives

Special Executive Short CoursesCourses on Various Management Topics

For brochures:

Telephone:

Fax:

617 253-4432

617 253-7166

617 258-6002

Executive Education

MIT Sloan School of Management

50 Memorial Drive

E52-126

Cambridge, MA 02142-1347

Beyond Horsefeathers

OKAY, okay. I'll admit it. We atTechnology Review, as somereaders have long suspected, areindeed Marxist-Lennonists.

In the sense first expressed, I believe,by Abbie Hoffman during the 1960s, weare Marxist not in the tradition of Karlbut of Groucho, and Lennonist not afterVladimir but John. In the spirit of Grou-cho Marx and John Lennon, we try topresent you not with orthodoxy and pre-dictable discourse but with new ideasthat are stimulating, skeptical of conven-tional wisdom, and filled with intellec-tual surprises.

We do not aimto convert you to anyparticular cause-our authors' politics infact span a very wide range-but tosharpen your thinking wherever yourown politics, opinions, and sympathiesmay lie. After aLI,if society is to developand apply new technology, as well asadapt old technology, in the most cre-ative and enlightened ways, we havetoexamine diverse and sometimes auda-cious options-including a few withwhich we may heartily disagree.

I am moved to say all this because ofthe many letters we received, most ofthem negative, in response to Gar Alper-ovitz's article, "Distributing Our Tech-nological Inheritance," in the Octoberissue. In a bygone TV commercial, thegreat mother of us all created a hell of astorm when confronted with a proposedsubstitute for good old-fashioned butter."It's not nice to fool Mother Nature,"she explained. Similarly, in the case ofthe Alperovitz article, it's obviously notnice to fool with the American Dream-or at least to be perceived as doing so.In this case, the reader stimulation wesought was actually irritating for mostrespondents, the intellectual surprisesdownright unpleasant.

Alperovitz questioned the traditionalAmerican belief that any person, if he orshe is alert, astute, and persistent enough,should be allowed to grow rich virtuallywithout bound. Observing that we allstand atop a Gibraltar of knowledge,accumulated over generations and con-

First line

tributed to by numerouspeople, and thatthis common inheritance provides mostof the basis of present-day advances, heargued that the resulting wealth shouldbe more broadly shared.

Letter writers were "aghast" at this"profound foolishness" and "crackpotsocial theory," and many deemed Alper-ovitz to be "waving the red flag of social-ism." "Calling for the end of propertyrights," he would purportedly "strip allindividuals of the products of their workand deliver it to the mob," "have the

Unconventionalideas are often thefuel

ofprogress.

-government firehose itto nonproductivepurposes," and "terrorize freedom-lov-ing people everywhere." Did you fail tonotice, asked one reader, "that a similaridea just killed tens and impoverishedhundreds of millions of people in its 70-year reign in the Soviet Union?"

The author in fact neither said norimplied any of the above. Using therenowned Bill Gates, America's wealthi-est individual (with a net worth, recentlyestimated byForbes, of $9.35 billion),as an example, Alperovitz questionedwhether the entrepreneur "should per-sonally benefitto such a degree"(empha-sis mine). He never said that Gates andothers of his ilk shouldn't be rewardedfor their accomplishments or shouldn'tbe rich.

Despite the irate reaction, Alperovitz'sbasic notions do not seem so radical tomainstream economists with whom Ispoke. "It is standard," said Paul Krug-man of Stanford University, "to try toregain for society ra good fraction of]some big private gain." Such an assump-tion "is built into the tax system, whichis strongly progressive." And LesterLave of Carnegie-Mellon Universitynoted that society constantly wrestleswith "pragmatic choices" on intellec-tual-property rights in its attemptto bal-

ance short-run gains to the innovatoragainst long-run gains to the public."Ask your readers," he said "if theythink we should make patents bothbroad and for eternity. Would they liketo still be paying royalties to the heirs ofJames Watt for the steam engine?"

Some might well argue that capitalshould be exclusively controlled by ahandful of elite private inve tors. Butthat's one kind of system, and an un-desirable extreme, with the other beingSoviet-style socialism. Surely there arenumerous possibilities in between, withsome potentially a lot more effective thanany we've yet known. Just as technologyinnovators continually try to modifytheir designs to improve efficiency, relia-bility, and satisfaction for more and moreusers, why shouldn't creative peoplethink about, and perhaps safely experi-ment with, economic ideas that mightbuild on the present system to producebig improvements and greater opportu-nities for more potential entrepreneurs?

In any case, the Alperovitz article wasnot a call to action but a "think piece,"aiming to stir readers' imaginations.Inthat goal it clearly succeeded, maybe toowell. But we atTechnology Reviewcan-not dismiss the responses as merely vis-ceral; they included plenty of legitimatecriticism. And we must take both typesof reaction seriously. Editors are sup-posed to stay slightly ahead of their read-ers, lest they bore them with what theyalready know; but editors must alsoavoid getting too far ahead of-or sim-ply out of tune with-readers, which candisorient, annoy, and lose them.

Even Groucho Marx and John Lennonoccasionally failed to plea e their audi-ences. In show business parlance, theycould "lay an egg"-they sometimes"bombed"-for the irnple reason thatthey regularly took risks and tried topush the limits of their craft and mate-rial. That chutzpah was what most ofthe time, deeply satisfied the audienceand led to a devoted following. AtTech-nology Review, we try to innovate-andlearn-in that spirit .•

-STEVEN J. MARcus

TECHNOLOGY REVIh'W 5

TechnologyReviewPublisher

WUilll1 J. HECHTEdilor

STEVF.N J. MARcusManaging EdilorSIINDRA H.lCJ(M.I.~

Senior EdilorsDAVID BRITTAN, HERB BRODY, SA.~1)RAKNIGtrr,

SII~'l£wIs, PInuPLoPICCOLO, UlJR.I V.l.~D.I.\IAsscdale Edilors

SUSAN?1: FAIRClOUGH,

BETIl HORNING, FAITH HR~llY,SHI.'RRlE SAJNr JOHN

CopyEdiIarLucY McCAUl.EYO.f!ireManagliTMARGARETSIfEA

Desigll DiredorK~11il.EF.l'ISM"RE

Setlier DesigrlliTNANCY L. CAHNERsA'isisJanl Di!sigller

LoRI NOLLET DA.I1ON

Produaion MallagerSCOTT GLIZIER

Desigll/PrrxlUcIiotl AssistalllV.lJ.ERIEKII1AT

ColuIIllli1ls$AllU!:L FLO~\/,N, BF.NNETT HARRlSON,ROBERT M. WHITE, lANGDONWINNER

Coldr/bulillg WrilersDF.BRA CIISII, DIIVID GRAllA.II,

WADE ROUSll, SETII SHULMAN, P.J. SKERRETT,jA.~ STEVENS, Pl.1T.RTYsoN

Mrocitlle PublisherPETER D. GEllATLY

Circulalioll DireaorBETIl !lAROVICK

!ssociale MarkelillgMallllgeTMAR1l1i\ CO~NORS

Subscrl/)/ioll Sm'it:dlallagerIJNO.IMIINION

Accounlillgl..F.TmA A. 1'RwRTIN

Techn%gy Rel'i/m'BoardRoom W ~t\... (Ut.wi)

Deparimerll o/Mec)xlI/icfll Ellg;lIeerillg, MITWOOOI£C.!'lJl'lUs

Pro/eswr o/TerlCbillgtunouuton, MITI'Eml D GWAlty

Assvciale Publisher, Techllology Retlie!v1l.oowt,G."St.Mary's HospitalPoundatton

\'lcroR K. Mcf'.uIDftKnighl Science -joumalism Felloll.'sh1{JS,MIT

RoilEaTMME:1tIlfl./tl/oWorid Pub/ishing Co.

PmuwR.S4mSu)'reMaflugetlletll Sdences

R.GAJrrSClltmJ"''''Washillgt/l7/ Biollichllology Funding

~"'" T.l\QIPs

As both business executive and investor,Bill Gates has demonstrated extraordi-nary skill in selecting, developing, andnurturing products, services, markets,and people.In this endeavor, he has cre-ated IS,OOO-plus direct jobs (forMicrosoft employees) and at least thatmany indirect jobs. Because Microsoftis a multinational enterprise, nearlyeveryone on earth benefits from BillGates's entrepreneurial skills-in par-ticular, Microsoft's stockholders,employees, suppliers, and customers.Now, that is wealth distribution on amassive scale. Incidentally, Gates haspublicly pledged to give away most ofhis personal wealth and bequeath"only" a few million to any offspringwho survive him.

History teaches that it is government-directed wealth redistribution that isinherently "irrational and unjust." Com-munal ownership of capital has a spottyrecord, too. Historically, collectivismyields corruption and tyranny while freemarkets yield the greatest prosperity forthe greatest number.

DAVE NELSON

Corvallis, Ore.

Gar AJperovitz's theme is that "all citi-zens should share in the benefits of acommon and prodigious legacy," whichhe identifies as the aggregate collectionof knowledge. But we already share thislegacy. Bill Gates's fortune has not beenobtained at the expense of others, asAlperovitz implies. Rather, Gates hasadded greatly to our general wealth witha clever marketing plan that effectivelycreated a standard operating system forpersonal computers. This standard hasspawned inexpensive software that hasprofoundly eased the burden of manyprofessions, including my own (law).

MARK RILLINSON

Leesburg, Va.

A resounding cheer for Gar Alperovitz'sclear-eyed discussion of why we aremorally obligated to distribute our tech-nological inheritance and how thatmight happen. His ideas will infuriatepeople who insist that alJ good individ-

LETTERS

ual outcomes are achieved through hardwork, wise investment, and carefulhousehold management, but his figuresand logic are hard to refute.In a worldwhere "smart machines" and globaliza-tion are steadily undermining developednations' traditional dependence on largenumbers of human workers, it is of theutmost importance to make clear, asAJperovitz does, that it is social invest-ment (use of taxpayer money) in health,education, law and order, R&D, andinfrastructure that has largely made pos-sible the private accwnulation of wealth.

We must find ways to recover andredistribute the vast wealth created bythe commercialization of informationtechnologies now and biotechnologiesin the future. This is a chalJenge, not animpossibility, and failure to achieve thegoal will leave us open to the sort ofpolitical strife that no number of prisonscan contain. Alperovitz might havenoted that we have only limited leadtime to create more equitable societies,in the name of enlightened self-interestas well as of justice, before we face thestark possibility of a bladerunner world.

SALLY LERNER

University of WaterlooDepartrnent of Environment

and Resource StudiesOntario, Canada

I applaud Technology Reviewfor raisingthe important question of what eco-nomic alternatives may lie beyond cor-porate capitalism and state socialism.The emotionally charged competition

between these two dominant systemshas tended to obscure their commonfoundations in nineteenth-century indus-trialism and its legacy of environmentaldegradation and social ills that nowthreatens the planet. Alperovitz's criti-cism of the "irrationality of the presenteconomic system" may easily stir condi-tioned reflexes in protection of a systemno longer threatened-except by itself.As AJperovitz points out, we are finallybeginning to hear of some alternatives totaxing and slashing in solving problemsin education, health care, crime, andhomeles ness. The experiments in em-ployee and community ownership andpublic investment he refers to deservemuch closer examination.

As we move deeper into the postin-dustrial age of globalized transfer ofmoney, patents on genetic manipula-.tions, automated factories, ecologicaldevastation and depletion of resources,and a world economy dominated bytransnational corporations with budgetslarger than those of many nations, per-haps it is time to rethink our definitionsof wealth, property, work, and inheri-tance. Instead of holding old conceptssacred, it behooves us to tart determin-ing what really is sacred.

JEFFREY BARBER

Integrative Strategies ForumWashington, D.C.

It seems "irrational and unjust," Alper-ovitz says, that our society should permita class of privileged citizens to growwhose advantages derive solely from theluck of the draw at birth and not fromtheir own talent and hard work. Yesindeed. Bravo! It is precisely the energyof individual entrepreneurs, creators,and innovators, motivated often by thehope of achieving great honor or wealth,that drives this democratic free markethe wishesto tear down. Strange that heshould twist the value of individual ini-tiative into a call for leveling and state-imposed mediocrity.

Bill Gates owes none of us a red cent.Some in the bu iness have questionedhis style and the ethics of some of hisdealings. These are separate issues that

TFn INOLOGYREVIEW 7

can be fairly debated. None, however,doubt the drive and determination andbrilliance of the man who has helpedcreate an industry that employs thou-sands and provides vast benefits to thewhole of society. So he's garnered $8 bil-lion and counting. Fine by me. Morepower tohim. We should all be so lucky.

William CooperChicago, Ill.

THE PROPER STUDY OF VIOLENCEMuch of Jane Ellen Stevens's article"Treating Violence as an Epidemic"(TRAugust/September 1994) is sheer non-sense and conjecture unhindered by fact.Just because one uses med-ical terms like "epidemic"and "prevention," it doesnot follow that the natureof and reasons for vio-lence have somehowmir-aculously changed. Thearticle fails to note a sin-gle instance where thisnew approach has mate-rially reduced violent acts.

Also, the article claimsthat from 1975 to 1989,when prison terms tripled,crime rates increased. ButI have seen other tatistics that demon-strate the opposite: as jail time decreasedfor crimes, many repeat offendersreturned to the streets, where they com-mitted violent crimes again.

It is time we faced the fact that thebreakdown of social structures is themajor contributor to violence. I wouldprefer a community that has high moralstandards, strict laws, and swift punish-ment for crimes over one that promotesunderstanding and counseling.

RALPH T. SOULEBremerton, Wash.

LETTERS

Violence, as defined by government andindependent "experts," occurs mainlyamong the poor and results from drugs,poor upbringing, or some mixture of thetwo. The "violence as an epidemic" con-cept is determined to ignore about 99percent of the violence and violent insti-tutions in the world today.

TERRY ScanSeattle, Wash.

Because alcohol is closely linked withviolent behavior, banning alcohol adver-tising on radio and television would seemreasonable. Afterall, the beliefs of chil-dren are shaped to no small extent by

what they see daily ontelevision. The law mightbe similar to the onepassed in 1971 banningcigarette advertising inthe name of reducingtobacco-related morbid-ity and mortality. How-ever, after spending yearstrying to convince ourlegislators to do so, I canonly report with sadnessthat our Washington law-makers seem to have nodesire to place the health

and lives of our youth above the privateinterests of this nation's alcohol andbroadcasting industries.

How odd that automobile accidentsdon't qualify for the new approach tostudying violence. But then, hardly any-thing does-evictions that make familieshomeless, plant closings accompanied bythe end of pension plans, and the releaseof toxic substances on an unsuspectingpublic are all outside the new purview.

8 JANUARY 1995

CYRUSJ. STOW

Conyers, Ga.

Stevens seems to studiously avoid theissue of gender. Yet gender can be readin the author's mentions of violent crimestatistics: "rape per 100,000 women" and"female abuse by male partners" (whichis so common that it is Ii ted per 1,000couples as opposed to the per 100,000scale for other crimes).Also, the violentDutch family members Stevens citesappeared tobe all males. In spite of this,her only reference to sexism is in a laun-dry list of possible causes of violence.

While some women do perpetrate vio-lence, and some men do not, we arelargely talking about a male problem.And in approaching the problem so-cially, politically, and biologically, an

analysis of gender (including feminism,patriarchy, and male culture) is essential.

BETSY SALKIND

NewYork,N.Y.

To blame crimes of violence on the own-ership of arms by law-abiding citizens islike blaming intravenous drug abuse onthe possession of hypodermic syringesby insulin-dependent diabetics.If,as thearticle states, the Center for DiseaseControl and Prevention has "almost noinformation about what works andwhat doesn't work" in preventing vio-lence, how can we be so sure that guncontrol is the answer?It is easy to demo-nize an inanimate object when we needto undertake the real and unpleasantmeasures necessary to turn back the ris-ing tide of violence.

JOHANP. BAKKER

West Bloomfield, Mich.

In pointing out that some communitiesare less violent than others, Jane EllenStevens fails to draw the conclusion thatindividual regard, personal respect, self-esteem, a strong code of personal respon-sibility and community service, and otherpositive values are central factors in pre-venting violence. Violence prevention hasalso been linked to the institutions thathelp define our communities such as ourschools, universities, hospitals, local busi-nesses, churches, and government.Ifthese entities teach or exemplify callous-ness, indifference, disregard, and uncar-ing attitudes, then these negative valuesare transmitted to the community. This iswhy Healthy People 2000,which setsnational goals for health promotionactivities and disease prevention to bemet by the turn of the century, treats vio-lence as a public-health issue.

Violence-prevention strategies arecheaper and more effective in the longrun than incarceration that costs upto$100,000 per inmate and entails terri-ble loss of life.

LoUIS W. SULLIVANPresident

Morehouse School of MedicineAtlanta, Ga.

Continued on page 70