The Human Genome Project represents the convergence of three billion years of biological evolution and ten thousand or more years of cultural evolution-and their interaction is bound to change both, profoundly. From now on, their futures will be indissolubly linked. Actually, these streams, coursing through time, have already unwittingly made contact. With the invention of sanitation and the introduction of modem medicine, the role of natural selection in the perpetuation of the species was markedly reduced, with inevitable influence on the human gene pool. Now we foresee a more conscious interaction. Those who fear, even dread, its uncertain consequences, argue that we should prevent or abort this meeting. To do so would, of course, consign humanity forever to the cruelties and opportunities of the genetic lottery-statistical cruelties that mean blighted lives for those afflicted; statistical opportunities that provide the rare genius who, appearing at the right time, forever changes our civilization. Must we accept the former to have the latter? And though rarely noted, to do so implies that our present genetic endowment-with all of its admixed ancient baggage and recent innovation-is beyond human grasp and appreciation, much less improvement, an acme, or the expression of a divine will. To some, even increased knowledge of the genetic basis of human characteristics is an assault upon human dignity. But is human dignity best affirmed by willful ignorance, or by increasing human self-knowledge? Some, seeking an intermediate course, argue that biology and culture should meet at arms length. They fear the consequence of unrestrained interaction. They seek a decorous relationship in which the culture may pick and choose from the biological knowledge acquired to alleviate a few grievous genetic ailments, but avoid large-scale biological, and inevitably cultural, change. Others would set no a priori limits to this interaction, but would advocate great caution. We know so little about the complexity and tolerances of either our biological or cultural organization, they argue, that either or both could easily be destabilized with catastrophic consequence. In their view any experiments should be of small scale and slow pace. Still others, no doubt, full of confidence, would simply permit free enterprise to reign. The human genome project per se is intended solely to acquire knowledge. Yet in the ethos of modem society, it is feckless to suppose that knowledge, once available, will not be used. While ethicists may properly debate the morality of experimentation with sentient beings-in either the biological or cultural mode-heuristically, in a secular age dominated by the twin pillars of power-commerce and politics-what in fact is likely to happen? …