sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mark Ridley (zoologist), Robert Trivers, Viruses of the Mind

Vol 441|11 May 2006 SPRING BOOKS

Evolution of The thirtieth anniversary of ’ landmark work provides an opportunity to take stock.

Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think edited by & Mark Ridley : 2006. 304 pp. £12.99, $25

Dan Sperber “We are survival machines — robot vehicles JOE MAGEE BY ILLUSTRATIONS blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment … One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others.” That hope, expressed by Richard Dawkins in the preface of The Selfish Gene, has been more than fulfilled. Published 30 years ago, The Selfish Gene has been, and remains, one of the most influential science books of all time. To celebrate this anniversary, a third edition has been released, along with Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. The latter is a collection of comments and testimonials edited by Alan Grafen and Mark Ridley. In the 1960s and ’70s, biologists such as William Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, Robert Trivers and G. C. Williams sought to explain troubling aspects of by approaching them at the level of genes, rather than at the usual level of individual organisms, groups or species. The existence of altruistic they were provides us with a uniquely cogent beyond the boundaries and behaviour of orga- behaviour that may decrease the reproductive account of their actual effects on the world. nisms, for example when the genes of parasites success of altruistic individuals, for instance, The logic is that used by Darwin when he express themselves by modifying their host’s presents a puzzle for standard darwinism. explained the existence in nature of design behaviour. Hamilton showed that altruistic behaviour without a designer as an effect of selection. In the last chapter of the first edition of The may increase the chances of the genes involved Dawkins shows how this logic can be exploited Selfish Gene, Dawkins introduced what may being replicated when the beneficiaries are at the micro-level of ‘replicators’, or genes. be his most popular idea, that of ‘’, or also carriers of the same genes; this gene-level Whether evolution and selection are best cultural replicators. Any population of entities selection explains the evolution of . described at the level of genes, or at the higher that produce copies of themselves, and that What Dawkins did was integrate such find- levels of organisms or groups, or at all these vary both in their specific features and in ings into a vivid and systematic picture of bio- levels simultaneously, remains contentious their reproductive success, are replicators and logical evolution wholly “from the point of (with echoes of the debate in Grafen and Ridley’s are thus candidates for darwinian selection. view of the gene” and explore the wider impli- edited volume, Richard Dawkins). There is The idea that might be cations of this approach. His picture challenges little doubt, however, that the gene-centred modelled along darwinian lines had often common-sense ontology and expectations, approach has been the source of novel and been suggested, but Dawkins reformulated and is indeed astonishing. We spontaneously deep insights. In particular, further challeng- it with characteristic crispness and clarity. interpret the behaviour of individuals as that ing common sense, Dawkins attacked the view Contrary to the idea that cultural items of agents capable of pursuing their interest, of organisms as bearers of life par excellence. (such as ideas, skills, practices and artefacts) and extend this kind of interpretation to social Only in some cases do different replicators thrive because of their contribution to the groups. Fragments of molecules, on the other cooperate in such a way that larger coherent social or biological welfare of the individual or hand, are unfamiliar objects to which we are units — the ‘vehicles’ of replicators — emerge. groups that adopt them, Dawkins argued that not disposed to attribute interests and goals. Not all these vehicles correspond to the indi- cultural items may thrive because they cause Of course, genes are not literally agents, let vidual organism. In , their own propagation. Establishing the possi- alone selfish ones intent on propagating them- his second book and possibly his best, bility of such ‘selfish memes’ served two selves, but analysing what they would do if Dawkins showed how the vehicles may extend purposes: generalizing the idea of replicators

151 © 2006 Nature Publishing Group SPRING BOOKS NATURE|Vol 441|11 May 2006 beyond , and suggesting an evolution- us think about biology. And the latest volume, novels. Yet, perhaps because of the intricate ary approach to culture. Richard Dawkins, brings together testimonials mixture of paracelsian magic, metallurgy, However, as Robert Aunger observes in and reflections about Dawkins himself or medicine and alchemy, the historical Paracel- Grafen and Ridley’s book: “No significant body inspired by his work. Most of the contribu- sus has received comparatively little attention. of empirical research has grown up around the tions, by eminent scientists, philosophers and By presenting the work of Paracelsus, includ- concept … In fact the memetic litera- writers, are laudatory; a few are critical. The ing all the contradictions and neologisms, as ture remains devoted almost exclusively to book is a pleasant read and throws useful an intensely personal enterprise embedded theoretical antagonisms, internecine battles, light on the multiform impact of Dawkins’ in Renaissance life, Ball circumvents many of and scholastic elucidations of prior writing work on biology, philosophy, science writing the historical difficulties and comes up with an on memes.” Dawkins has essentially left the and the public debate on science and religion. excellent biography that is relevant for his- development of to others. Instead, Particularly illuminating are Grafen’s chapter torians and general readers alike. together with , he has used the discussing the relationship between Dawkins’ Ball takes events in the life of Paracelsus as idea of the meme as a powerful tool in his crit- work and more mathematically oriented starting points for discussing the Renaissance icism of religious ideas, which he describes population genetics, and Ullica Segerstråle’s world. For instance, when discussing Para- as “viruses of the mind”. The effectiveness of chapter on Dawkins and . Still, celsus’ life as a vagabond, Ball speaks about the criticism does not much depend on the in preparing this review, I re-read The Selfish the difficulties of travelling in early modern scientific details of a would-be memetics. Gene, and this was the real treat. ■ Europe. His discussion of the alchemy of Dawkins’ depth and clarity of vision, is at the Centre National de la Paracelsus transforms into a discussion of intellectual honesty and passion, and superb Recherche Scientifique and the Institut Jean Nicod, economic growth and the power of miners, writing have indeed changed the way many of 1 bis avenue Lowendal, 75014 Paris, France. and his religious and political views are compared to those of reformers and princes. Ball speaks of Paracelsus’ views on astrology in relation to the astronomy of Copernicus and his followers. And last but not least, Renaissance magic and mysticism Ball writes extensively about the traditional (galenic) medicine and chemistry that Para- The Devil’s Doctor: Paracelsus and the occult forces were accepted parts of early mod- celsus challenged. The book’s illustrations World of Renaissance Magic and Science ern science. In addition, Ball acknowledges provide a vivid picture of the time and further by Philip Ball the close connection between early modern enliven Ball’s account. Heinemann/Farrar, Straus, Giroux: 2006. natural philosophy, Renaissance humanism This approach is brave and enriching but 448 pp. £20/$26 and Reformation religion. In so doing, he fol- is also a little overwhelming. At times Para- lows a fairly recent trend in the history of celsus disappears into the background, and the Rina Knoeff science and medicine in which religion and reader is in danger of getting lost in detailed One has to admire Philip Ball’s courageous science are seen as mutually shaping fields descriptions of Renaissance culture. Moreover, undertaking in writing a biography of Para- of knowledge. in a book as ambitious as this it is almost celsus, arguably the most controversial In The Devil’s Doctor, Ball convinc- unavoidable that the terminology becomes at medical writer in the Renaissance. Not ingly shows that in order to under- times confusing. Much of Paracelsus’ work only are the works of Paracelsus’ own stand Paracelsus’ work and personality teeters on the brink of the spiritual, and his hand extremely difficult to read and we must accept that “in the philosophy own vocabulary often seems puzzling to understand but, more importantly, histor- of Paracelsus science and rationalism do modern readers. ical reconstructions of his life and not compete with mysticism and The difficulty in understanding Paracelsus’ thoughts complicate the picture superstition but blend with neologisms and expressions is clearly visible in to such an extent that it it, producing a world that this book. Ball, for instance, is often wobbly in is hard to write a ‘fair’ now seems at the calling details of Paracelsus’ work ‘mechanical’, biography. same time wonder- ‘spiritual’ or ‘materialistic’. Sometimes it is not Paracelsus is known ful and bizarre”. clear whether he adopts Paracelsus’ own words for being a failed physi- Paracelsus, or or gives them a modern, and therefore differ- cian; a psychiatric sub- Philippus Aureolus ent, meaning. For example, Ball maintains that ject in the casebooks Theophrastus Bom- Paracelsus’ concentration of nature’s potencies of the psychoanalyst bastus von Hohen- in the preparation of medicines was “not Carl Jung; a German heim, spoke to the mechanical” (presumably in a modern sense), national hero during the imagination. He is but on the next page he states that, according Nazi period; and the said to have ridden a to Paracelsus, the powers of the stars permeate founder of biochemis- magical white horse, to “mechanically” through the Universe (thereby try. Ball, however, sets have cured many incur- referring to Paracelsus’ own words). In both Paracelsus in the social, able diseases, and to have cases Ball refers to the working of invisible religious and cultural life carried an enormous sword powers, but apparently these are mechanical in of his time, a refreshing with magical powers, as well one case but not in the other, leaving it unclear move away from the ten- as the secret elixir of life. His what Paracelsus meant when he spoke of the dency to describe early ‘sci- name was linked with those of mechanical working of the invisible forces of entists’ as the forerunners of Faust and Martin Luther, and nature. The same goes for the important today’s scientific developments. among the many miracles he paracelsian distinction between the material Ball is aware of the historio- allegedly performed was the crea- and the spiritual, which at times makes Ball’s graphic difficulties surrounding tion of a living, human-like being. description of Paracelsus’ thoughts somewhat the life and work of Paracelsus. Today, Paracelsus appears bewildering. His account starts with a brief as a hero in the magical world To be fair to Ball, he does explain many of discussion of how magic and of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Paracelsus’ neologisms, but he also has the

152 © 2006 Nature Publishing Group