Solomon H. Katz

Millets are climate-resistant, potential alternatives to wheat that could provide environmental, food security, and health benefits (e.g., lower glycemic index). However, millets are high in phytic acid, which reduces the bioavailability of essential minerals. Millets are often fermented in Africa and parts of Asia to improve bioavailability and, thus, nutritional value, but both unfermented and fermented millets may have flavors unfamiliar to Western cultures. We conducted two pilot studies on sensory perception and liking of whole grain, United States pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), in a group of U.S. consumers. In a preliminary study, we compared pearl millet treated under five different conditions (0, 48, and 96 h of fermentation fully submerged in either distilled water or in a 5% NaCl solution at 28 °C). We found that 96 h of spontaneous fermentation in water, an inexpensive and accessible technique consistent with consumer demand for minimally processed foods, reduced phytic acid by ~72%. However, consumers (n = 12) rated flatbreads made with fermented pearl millet as more bitter and sour than flatbreads made with unfermented pearl millet. In a second study, participants (n = 30) rated liking and purchase intent for whole wheat bread with 0 to 50% (w/w) substitution of pearl millet flour. Replacing up to 20% of wheat with fermented or unfermented pearl millet had no measurable effect on liking or purchase intent. More extensive substitution compromised liking, particularly with fermented pearl millet. More work is needed, but so far, there appear to be no sensory barriers to at least partial substitution of whole-grain pearl millet for wheat in whole wheat bread for United States consumers.

A more complete understanding of the biocultural evolutionary origins of the concept of ought as developed by David Hume and G. E. Moore may lower the philosophical barrier between is and ought and provide new insights about the separations between the domains of religion and science. If this conjecture is correct, the resulting wisdom will help transcend a major source of irony that Philip Hefner has so aptly identified in his essay.

With the millennium as a springboard, the United Nations embarked on an ambitious plan in the 1990s to halve the number of the world's population suffering from hunger by the year 2015. But despite UN Secretary General Ban‐Ki Moon's upbeat progress report on the Millennium Goals last summer, a new problem is emerging around food prices and food shortages. This problem has prompted swift action by the UN to try to avert looming food price crises throughout the developing world which could quickly undo much of the progress outlined in the report. In the developing world there is a very serious risk that fewer people will be able to get food. How may anthropologists contribute to this emerging problem?

This essay addresses a series of eight questions about what religion can do for science. It explores the secular role of religion in contemporary science and the need for greater synthesis between science and religion. It concludes that, for survival in the twenty‐first century, religion cannot exist without acknowledging and using the enormous information pool of science, and science can no longer shun or ignore religion. Humankind will always need the large, synthetic explanations that religion provides of why we are here and what we ought to do and believe. The world needs to mark this new millennium with a sense of respect, cooperation, and even synthesis between science and religion.