Essentially Jonas Salk's plea -- ""to look at human life from a biological viewpoint"" -- is the same as that of biologist Garrett Hardin (Exploring New Ethics for Survival, p. 561). Both urge a new ""theoretical-experimental"" approach to the social, psychological and moral problems of mankind to replace the age-old speculative-philosophical idealizations. But whereas Hardin makes his case with a brilliant science fiction parable, Salk proceeds via a series of laborious, strained but ultimately simplistic analogies between biological and social systems, genetic and psychological survival mechanisms, individual and phylogenetic ""choices."" Thus, for example, Salk argues that the body's immunological system, which protects the organism against being overwhelmed by disease, sometimes runs amok and works against the organism, and that its counterpart in psychology, the ""defense mechanisms"" can also become self-consuming and destructive. ""The products of man's imagination and undisciplined appetite may have a boomerang effect which in due time may well overpower him."" Herein lies the danger -- and the hope. Human development must proceed via challenge and response in a dynamic relationship with the environment. And so forth and so on: ""learning,"" ""tolerance,"" ""rejection"" and ""conditioning"" are both social and somatic verities; deprivation or overabundance are bad for both physical and moral development; there is both ""biological"" and ""human"" purpose to life. Unfortunately when dealing with the practical applications of this wisdom Salk is not very daring -- he notes that cigarettes, drugs and war are bad since they produce bodily and social disequilibrium. . . . Disappointing.