When I was an undergraduate, I worked for the Department of Biology and was given the appropriate job for a clueless sophomore: cleaning out the rat cages. It was an excellent way to desensitize oneself to blood and gore. It was invariably an eye-opening way to start my day, cleaning the half-eaten newborns rats from the bottom grating of the cages and replacing the sawdust from the "droppings" tray. Mornings with the white, pink-eyed rodent cannibals had two immediate payoffs: I never needed a cup of coffee to wake me up (besides, there were no Starbucks in the Dark Ages) and, afterwards, I certainly didn’t really care for any breakfast. And these "benefits" ignored the more fundamental facts that I needed the job and that "beggars cannot be choosers."

But even the darkest of clouds can have shiny linings. Principally because of my role as "Keeper of the Rats" (and quite less so that I was majoring in biology) I became acquainted with the Chief of the Department of Biology, one Douglas Moore. Dr. Moore was a typical Ph.D. and always had an ear and an eye toward applying for research grants. While salaries of college professors may pay their light bills and buy their smokes, research grants are the butter and jam for their crust of bread. College faculty, particularly in the life sciences, have almost psychic powers when it comes to sniffing out sources for grant money. Doug Moore was no exception.

One morning back in 1971, Dr. Moore approached me - cigarette and coffee in hand - as I was wire-brushing off the stubborn remains of some newborns from a tray. After a puff and a swig, he began a fateful, if brief, conversation:

"Hey, Albright."

"Sir?" I replied.

"The National Science Foundation just announced they were starting a a ‘Student Research Program’ for undergraduates. God only knows why. I think you should apply for one of the grants."

"O.K. Exactly what does what you just said actually mean?" Yes, I was a smart ass at an early age.

"Get with Rod Farb, my graduate student, and he will get you up to speed."

"I can do that. Thanks, Dr. Moore."

I had no idea what I was thanking him for since I was already quite sure I just volunteered for some more work, probably without pay or academic credit. But, what the heck. I rationalized that Moore might be good for a letter of recommendation in return someday. Besides, a "research grant" sounded like "free money" to me, even then.

To make a very long story, under the tutelage of his patient grad student and the constant goading of Dr. Moore, I did submit a research proposal to the National Science Foundation. It was accepted for one of the hundred or so grants the program was dishing out nationwide. The personal windfall that this casual conversation - taking place amid the wafting odor of rat detritus and decaying puppies - was immense. The least of which (and I emphasize least) was that I published my first scientific paper.

I mention this only as an introduction to my subject: the lure of ideologies to the young mind. You see, the hot topic at this time in academic circles was the relatively new science of ecology. More specifically, how mankind - principally, The Great Satan, America - was sending the world spinning toward a premature apocalypse. The 1960s, after all, was a decade of doom and gloom. (And, coincidentally, drugs, sex and rock and roll - but that’s a whole different subject.)

First, in 1962, there was Rachel Carson’s "Silent Spring" which warned us that there would soon be no birds singing (thus, the book’s title) and, all along the food chain, life - as we knew it - would end. As any college student knew (then and now), if Justice William O. Douglas, the Sierra Club and the New York Times recommended the book, it had to be the gospel truth, right?

Next, there was Paul Ehrlich’s "The Population Bomb" in 1968. Not only were we poisoning ourselves, we were overpopulating the earth and would starve to death! The book was, basically, a repackaging of Malthusian theory from the 18^th century. The fact that Ehrlich had a Ph.D. in entomology and specialized in lepidoptera apparently didn’t strike any of his readers as incongruous.

I was young and bought into the ideology that "mankind must be stopped" before it is too late! The subject of my first research would, of course, be a cataloging of pesticides in rural soil, water and wildlife samples. I started wearing a fatigue jacket and long hair. I wrote scathing articles for the campus newspaper decrying the corporate greed and government complicity that allowed us to poison the world. It was, clearly, time to prepare for the end of the world. Everything made sense to me in those college days. I had it all figured out. The only question in my mind was whether we would die from poisoning ourselves or by starving to death. Truth is truth, right?

When young, the lure of ideologies is seductive. It’s like bears to honey and Paris Hilton to cameras. "Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim" and young people "gotta" be idealistic. Ideologies are visions that help the young and the inexperienced mind sort through a complex world. Ideologies are tethers that give young minds the courage to walk, confidently, into a dangerous world. These "self-evident truths" give the inexperienced mind a comfort zone - a sense that a discordant and chaotic world has an explanation.

An ideology may be viewed as a "knowledge-economizing" tool: it explains a bewildering range of disconnected (and possibly threatening) phenomenon with a few simple and familiar variables. Ideologies simplify, categorize and label. They generally put the world and all its complexities into two columns: good or bad, right or wrong, black or white. Ideologies have little need (or room) for shades of gray. For young, impressionable and inexperienced minds they are not unlike "junk food" - they are cheap, readily available, are easily "digestible" and they can sustain you. At least, in the short term.

Ideologies are also attractive for simple, less educated people. My father, who I dearly love and owe everything to, is now near 80. He was a marginal high school graduate, served in the Korean War days, and made his living as a postman for 35 years. This, mind you, was in the days before the mail trucks to drive and way before postmen could wear shorts in July. He walked a 6 or 7 mile route, 5 days a week, with a 40-50 pound leather bag over his shoulder. Rain, sleet, snow or 100% humidity - he carried that mail. He worked hard and read little. He raised his only son to have no goal but of "going to college and not having to work like this for a living." It worked. No way was I going to work that hard for a wage.

Dad has been a lifelong supporter of unions and the Democratic Party. After all, FDR brought his out of the Great Depression and the Democrats always supported unions. That is his ideology. No matter who runs on the Democratic ticket, he always votes for them. He still believes Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were "good" Presidents and that Reagan, and both of the Bushs were "bad" Presidents. He watches network news every night and reads the Sunday paper. Those are his informational sources. Therefore, he seldom sees or hears anything that shakes him from his lifelong belief system, his ideology.

I don’t discuss politics with my father. I love our time together too much to spend it talking about things - like his ideology - that have sustained him all his life. He is a simple man and I understand - even if I don’t agree - with his world view. Like the young, the unsophisticated citizen often clings to an ideological vision of a complex world. As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism:

"It was characteristic of the rise of the Nazi movement in Germany and of the Communist movement in Europe after 1930 that they recruited their members from the masses of apparently indifferent people whom all other parties had given up as too apathetic or too stupid for their attention."

As one matures (in the case of the young) and acquires more knowledge (in the case of the uneducated), ideologies sometimes become strained. Facts, which are independent of ideologies, become known with experience or through exposure to new viewpoints. Often, facts are totally at odds with our ideology. We are forced to reconcile these facts with out ideology. The "costs" of continuing to explain and process the world through an ideology of simple and familiar "truths" can increase as new facts present themselves.

There are two possibilities when an ideology can no longer be reconciled with perceived reality. The first is that the ideology is irrationally defended. My father will remain a Democrat and a "union man" until the day he dies. If Lucifer ran on the Democratic ticket against the second-coming of Teddy Roosevelt on the Republican, I have absolutely no doubt he would vote a straight Democratic ballot. If someone were foolhardy enough to point out that was not a particularly reasonable decision, he would say something like "I always vote Democrat because they have always supported the working man." Ideology, when held this strongly, always trumps reason.

The second response when an ideology that is no longer supported by facts available to the idealist is that we must either refute the fact or revise our ideology. Unfortunately, some advocates attack the motives of the fact-finder rather than the validity of the facts, themselves. In 1971, when the EPA did a 6 month study with over 300 witnesses and concluded that DDT was, actually, not harming the environment, environmentalists (including me at the time) were vocally skeptical. Critics said the EPA was "in the pocket of big business" or "ignoring the plight of 3^rd world countries" or, simply, "corrupt." In fact, the outcry was so vociferous that DDT was eventually banned, almost world-wide. The facts were not in question. However, facts often succumb to ideologies.

During the few years of the ideological phase of my youth, I was increasingly confronted with facts that refuted most things I believed to be my personal "truths." I became more and more aware of some of the fallacies that were part of my vision of the world. And, eventually, I discarded most of the ideology of my precious theories of the how the world operates entirely. It was a gradual process but, over time, experience and a great deal of thought, it happened. And it didn’t hurt a bit.

Now, I really try not to have an all-encompassing vision. Instead, I investigate the issues of interest from a "zero starting position." I still have a few "non-zero" positions (bigger government is not better government, capitalism is better than alternatives, there must be an honest politician somewhere, et cetera) but I try to start out neutral. I also consciously try to be slow to form an opinion and, when I finally do, I strive to base it on facts and not supposition or extrapolation. Finally, I try and be adaptable. If new facts appear that refute my current position, I like to think I can change my opinion. At least, these are the ideals I am trying to achieve.

Ideologies are not inherently bad. They have their place in the world and can help many navigate the complexities of the modern world. With so many choices and so much information available to us, a guiding vision can, often times, lead us through challenging times. The problem occurs when we stop questioning the validity of our personal ideology. Then, like the drivers who follow their GPS devices off a cliff, we can be lead, blindly, to make bad decisions.

Question everything. And, when you think you know the answer. Start over.