Biology and the Social Sciences Author(S): Edward O
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Biology and the Social Sciences Author(s): Edward O. Wilson Source: Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 4, Discoveries and Interpretations: Studies in Contemporary Scholarship, Volume II (Fall, 1977), pp. 127-140 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024512 . Accessed: 01/06/2014 19:14 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Daedalus. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.92.9.57 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 19:14:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EDWARD O. WILSON Biology and the Social Sciences a correct statement a statement. But the of a The opposite of is false opposite truth.?Niels Bohr profound truth may well be another profound an For every discipline in its early stages of development there exists antidisci for pline. For many-body physics, particle physics; chemistry, many-body molecular biol physics; for molecular biology, chemistry; for cellular biology, to ogy; and so forth. With the word antidiscipline I wish emphasize the special adversary relation that exists initially between the studies of adjacent levels of of a organization. This relationship is also creative, and with the passage great deal of time it becomes fully complementary. now to In this article I will argue that biology has moved close enough the social sciences to become their antidiscipline. Hitherto biology has affected the as social sciences largely through technological manifestations such the benefits of medicine, the mixed blessings of genetics, and the specter of population matters are growth. Although of great practical importance, these wholly trivial to foundation of the social sciences. The conven with reference the conceptual tional academic treatments of ''social biology" and "social issues of biology" are not present some formidable intellectual challenges, but they concerned with the core of social theory. Many scholars judge this core to be the deep structure of human an that is also the nature, essentially biological phenomenon primary focus of the humanities. If it is true that biology is the antidiscipline of the social sciences, the past a common failure of the social sciences to develop body of theory is under standable. The reason is that the relevant branches of biology?neurobiology now mature to a and sociobiology?are only becoming enough attain juncture to can with the social sciences. Although itwould be premature say that biology revolutionize the social sciences, at least to the extent that chemistry has revolu to cannot. tionized biology, it would be equally premature say that it This proposition is well worth examining. To that end I will first describe some precedents from the history of biology, then turn to developments within a to the individual social sciences that suggest growing susceptibility biological as a explanation. Finally, acknowledging my obligation student of the antidisci pline, I will attempt to define the obviously strong limitations of biological re ductionism. 127 This content downloaded from 130.92.9.57 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 19:14:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EDWARD O. WILSON 128 Disciplines andAntidisciplines a In general, the practitioners of given discipline in its early, natural-history are phase concerned with the discovery and classification of phenomena. They stress novelty and particularity. In terms of the classic thematic dualities of sci ence,1 their explanations are characteristically holistic, emphasizing pattern and are form over units of construction. In the early phase, specialists also likely are to be dualistic in philosophy, questioning whether their phenomena directly subject to the laws of the remainder of science.2 And in later stages, having been are more converted, they still concerned with what Victor Weisskopf has called as use to extensive opposed to intensive research, the of existing theory explain as to the widest possible range of phenomena opposed the search for fundamen tal laws.3 to Members of the antidiscipline are likely to be monistic with reference the own as discipline and dualistic with reference to their subject. Having chosen their primary subject the units of the lower of the paired levels of organization, can laws. they believe that the next discipline above be reformulated by their totem Their interest is relatively narrow, abstract, and exploitative, lacking the most ic attachment to phenomenology displayed by the devoted students of the discipline above. Thus P. A. M. Dirac, speaking of the theory of the hydrogen atom, could say that its consequences would unfold as mere chemistry, whereas to recent the biochemist Franz Hofmeister responded the great advances in cell more to en structure by recommending (in 1901) that biologists pay attention zymes. an A tense It is easy to see why each discipline is also antidiscipline. creative of are interplay is inevitable because the devotees of adjacent levels organization on committed to different methodologies when they focus the upper level. By a can as one a three today's standards broad scholar be defined who is student of to his subjects: his discipline, the lower antidiscipline, and the subject which as specialty stands antidiscipline. A well-rounded cellular neurophysiologist, of for example, is deeply involved in the microstructure and behavior single cells, but he also understands the molecular basis of electrical and chemical neuron to account transmission, and he hopes to explain enough of systems help more of animal behavior.4 for the elementary patterns Cell Biology and Biochemistry at an In the late 1800s cell biology and biochemistry grew accelerating pace. was can Their relationship during this period very complicated, but it be broad as were ex ly characterized fitting the schema just described. The cytologists an cited by the mounting evidences of intricate cell architecture. They had also deduced the mysterious choreography of the chromosomes during cell division, setting the stage for the emergence of modern genetics and experimental devel on opmental biology. Many biochemists, the other hand, remained skeptical of the idea that so much structure exists. They emphasized the possibility of arti fact production by the chemical reactions used in cytological preparations and over stood apart from the debate then raging whether protoplasm is homoge or more neous, reticular, granular, foamlike. Their interest lay in the "funda This content downloaded from 130.92.9.57 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 19:14:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BIOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 129 mental" issues of the chemical nature of protoplasm, especially the newly formulated enzyme theory of life. too of to In general, biochemists judged the cytologists ignorant chemistry grasp the basic processes, whereas the cytologists considered the methods of the to structures that the cell. chemists inadequate characterize the diagnose living in The renewal of Mendelian genetics and subsequent progress chromosome at to a no immediate mapping did little first effect synthesis. Biochemists, seeing way to encompass classical genetics, by and large ignored it. now so Both sides were essentially correct. Biochemistry has explained own as most extrava much of the cellular machinery by its terms to justify its gant early claims. But in achieving this feat (mostly during the past thirty years) was new it partially transformed into the discipline of molecular biology?bio movements chemistry that entails particular spatial arrangements and of large a and molecules. Cytology forced the development of special kind of chemistry a new the employment of wide array of powerful methods, including electro phoresis, chromatography, density-gradient centrifugation, and X-ray crystal same cellular lography. At the time cytology metamorphosed into modern outlook biology. Aided by electron microscopy, it converged in language and toward molecular biology. Finally, classical genetics, by switching from Droso more and phila to the ultrafast-breeding and far simply constructed bacteria to viruses, has incorporated much of biochemistry become molecular genetics. a was Progress over large part of biology fueled by competition among the various attitudes and themata derived from biology and chemistry?the dis a cipline and its antidiscipline. Joseph Fruton, biochemist who has paid close com attention to this Hegelian interplay, has suggested that inevitably "such to petition is attended by tensions among the participants. I venture suggest that are source this competition and these tensions the principal of the vitality of biochemistry and are likely to lead to unexpected and exciting novelties in the as have in the future, they past."5 Ecology andPopulation Biology a as ten Modern ecology has had troubled history. As recently years ago it was painfully unfashionable in many American universities. An anecdote will illustrate how serious the situation had become. The Department of Biology at was Harvard University at that time increasingly dominated by molecular and new cellular biology, and there appeared to be little chance of adding faculty on or members specializing populations ecosystems. One afternoon I proposed a departmental membership for distinguished ecologist who had been appointed a new by another school within the university. One of the molecular geneticists, Nobel laureate, said, "Are they out of their minds?" When I asked what he an meant, he responded that anyone who hired ecologist must be out of his one mind.