STANDARDIZATION OF PROCEDURES

I t was suggested that I should discuss a general topic in this paper. Therefore mine is more of an appeal than a scientific treatise. One of the many progressive directions in physical anthropology is the comparative study of living populations in relation to their geographical distribution. This entails, in part, the problems of growth and physique in relation to environment. Hopefully, we envisage that such studies will permit not only extrapolation of the relationships of physique and structural organization to the different conditions of life in the past but also provide a yardstick of prognosis for future survival of populations. Primitive, that is hunter-gatherer, simple pastoral, or digging-stick-and-hoe, populations provide patterns for delving into the past. What does ‘survival’ or ‘adaptation’ mean in man relative to his genetic constitution, nutritional status, climate and other environmental factors? How best can we apply Simpson’s dictum “The mechanism of adaptation is natural selection” (Simpson, 1952) to man? A mountainous mass of data could be compiled and computed and this may yet have to be done. Relative rates ofgrowth, maturation, fertility and longevity, susceptibility to disease, the functional efficiency of different physiological systems, and numerous serological, biochemical, behavioral and other studies will be required. In essence, with the gathering momentum of the trend towards research in human biology, we are concerned with human growth and constitutional variation. One of the major projects of the International Biological Program is t o be ‘Human Adaptability’ and prominent in this program are such study outlines as Environmental Physiology; Fitness, Growth and Physique; Genetics of Populations; and Health, Epidemiological and Nutritional Aspects (Mourant, 1964). These broad fields are reflected quite obviously in this Annal. It is not my purpose to select examples and provide evidence in each area of endeavor to prove the one point that I wish to make, namely, that in many basic procedures, especially those carried out in the field, a determined effort should be made to examine and discuss these procedures in order that some objective, standard methodology may be laid down. Just over a year ago a WHO Scientific Group met in Geneva to discuss research in population genetics of primitive groups. During a brief period of one week considerable agreement was reached on data to be collected, research design, etc., which was recently published ( W H O Technical Report Series, No. 279. Geneva, 1964). That meeting is clear evidence that agreement can be reached, but much is yet to be done because the detailed techniques were not tackled. 1 give you a simple example of the chaotic state of past and present endeavors. In the description and classification of races, ethnic groups, local populations. etc., references are constantly made to the relative thickness of lips, size of mouth, height of cheek bones, size and appearance of nose, eye, ear, hairiness and hairlessness, types of hair, and so forth. Now, try to trace the original field records and published data and determine the method of recording and then attempt to compare populations directly! Generally speaking, this is usually impossible. A good example is also Biasutti’s skin color maps noted by C. S. Coon in this Annal. On the basis of our work with the reflectance spectrophotometer, one should hesitate to use those maps a s a basis for comparisons. Take another example, slightly more sophisticated. In the literature you will find noted the pres-