sign in sign up
<<
Home , Exaptation, Not in Our Genes, Sociobiology Study Group

Science Studies 1/2000

Politics by Scientific Means and Science by Political Means: Trojan Horses in the Debate

Ullica Segerstråle

The Sociobiology Debate: as if the metaphysical dispute of the last A Second Look three decades or so – in the latest mani- festation of its at least 2000 year old his- In an article in 1981 at the height of the tory – was finally nearing its resolution. sociobiology controversy, biologist and Still, the sociobiology debate was never essayist Lewis Thomas marveled at the about real physical genes. Sociobiology fact that two intelligent scientists like had to do with hypothetical genes “for” Harvard’s Edward O. Wilson and Richard behavior appearing in certain new theo- Lewontin would wish to engage them- retical models, and it was these genes selves in something as unyielding as a that were under dispute. dispute about human nature. For Tho- What attracted the participants in the mas, that was the same as “debating the sociobiology debate to this particular unknowable” (Thomas, 1981). Still, the academic feud? No doubt metaphysical sociobiology controversy seems to have questions gave the controversy some of held deep fascination for a great num- its appeal. Still, we have to remember ber of people for a quarter of a century – that the protagonists were scientists. And perhaps just because it was dealing with whatever other concerns and commit- such metaphysically appealing issues as ments scientists may be entertaining, human nature, , and free will. they are typically interested in science. I Today the debate continues in a new will here develop the argument that the guise in the conflict surrounding “evo- controversy actually served the partici- lutionary psychology,” a take-off from pants on both sides well in their ambi- sociobiology. But on June 26, 2000, with tion to promote what they took to be the announcement that the sequencing “good science.” But just how did this of the human was soon to be happen? I identify two different sce- completed, it may have seemed to many narios. One represents the standard in-

Science Studies, Vol. 13(2000) No. 1, 3–18 Science Studies 1/2000

terpretation of the sociobiology debate, by people like William Hamilton, Rob- which says that what was happening was ert Trivers, and John Maynard Smith. just “politics by other means.” Already New theories now shifted the focus from here, however, it is clear that the socio- the individual organism to groups of biology controversy was not a “purely” relatives who shared genes. With the political debate, but also involved deep- help of cost-benefit calculations with an seated scientific beliefs and ambitions. eye to the genetic relatedness between The other is the more interesting possi- a donor and a recipient of an altruistic bility that the sociobiology debate was act, it was now possible to show that actually an example of a different strat- from a gene’s point of view it made sense egy, which might be called “science by for a bird, say, to sacrifice itself by let- political means.” ting out an alarm call, if it in this way In this article, I will be limiting myself could save a whole bunch of relatives. to a discussion of Edward O. Wilson and wrote the book The his two chief intellectual opponents Ri- Selfish Gene to further explain the rea- chard Lewontin and Stephen J. Gould. soning behind the new models in evo- Obviously, the sociobiology debate has lutionary biology. later become a major transatlantic con- What happened in 1975 was, that troversy with Gould and Richard Dawkins what Wilson wanted to present as excit- as the chief combatants. I will be largely ing new findings, his critics declared to drawing on material presented in more be “bad” and dangerous, ideologically detail in my book Defenders of the Truth: influenced science. The critics were re- The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology lentless in their attack. Among the most Debate and Beyond (Segerstråle, 2000). vocal ones were a number of Wilson’s Harvard colleagues, including Lewontin Sociobiology and Its Enemies and Gould. A letter in the New York Re- view of Books signed by them and a Wilson defined sociobiology as “the sys- group of area academics claimed tematic study of the biological basis of that Sociobiology supported a conserva- all social behavior.” The idea was, that tive political agenda and linked the book just like other features, behavior, too, is to racism and Nazism. According to the undergoing . But what upset a critics, if you said that something was in large number of academics and others our genes, that meant that it could not at the time was that Wilson in the last be changed, and this kind of biological chapter of his book included also hu- determinism would in turn undermine mans, and hypothetical genes for all the very idea of social reform. The most kinds of human behaviors. dramatic event was the 1978 meeting of The book Sociobiology was mostly the American Association for the Ad- about animals, of course. And Wilson did vancement of Science in Washington, have a lot of interesting news to share where a group of activists poured a about animal social behavior. There had pitcher of ice-water in Wilson’s neck, recently been a scientific breakthrough shouting: “Racist Wilson, you can’t hide, in : the mystery of we charge you with genocide!” or (the animal altruism had finally been cracked now empirically demonstrated): “Wil-

4 Ullica Segerstråle

son, you are all wet!” While sociobiologists found it unproble- Many bought into the critics’ view of matic to develop scientific models using sociobiology and Wilson’s political mo- hypothetical genes “for” social behavior, tives. Very few ever read his book (it was and behavioral geneticists felt free to a quite huge tome). And even fewer posit genes “for” various personality asked about Wilson’s real agenda – or, for traits or intelligence, this was an abso- that matter, about the critics’ agenda. lute anathema for the critics. Many of the And it is true that the critics’ claims were opponents of sociobiology had been plausible. In 1975 it was clearly too early trained in the experimental laboratory to even talk about the possibility of a bio- tradition, and for them, for a gene to be logical basis for human behavior. The even talked about, it would have to be “environmentalist” or culturalist para- identifiable in the lab! digm reigned high, with people like Mar- Declaring the modeling attempts of garet Mead in anthropology and B. F. sociobiology and behavioral Skinner in psychology. And just before, “bad science” automatically put the crit- there had been the controversy about IQ ics of sociobiology in an one-upmanship around psychologist Arthur Jensen’s position, because the sociobiologists (1969) suggestion that the 15 point White and behavioral geneticists clearly had no and Black difference in measured IQ physical genes to show. Still, the model- could have a genetic explanation. Wilson ers felt justified in hoping that in the fu- was actually extremely careful in his ture there would, indeed, turn out to ex- book when it came to statements about ist real genes corresponding to the traits both IQ and race.1 But he had commit- postulated in their formulas. They saw ted a bigger crime. He had speculated themselves as working with provisional that human characteristics, including genetic models, expecting the details to some of our most cherished ones, could be worked out later as experimental sci- actually have a genetic basis: all the way ence proceeded. In the meantime, they from sex role divisions and aggressive- would be developing testable hypoth- ness to moral concerns and even reli- eses and proceed as if behavioral genes gious beliefs. actually existed. They considered this very standard as a scientific strategy and Defenders of the Truth as representing normal “good science” in their fields. In Defenders of the Truth I argue that one But this was only part of the conflict. of the important dividing lines between The contrasting positions on science the two camps in this long-standing con- were at the same time connected to troversy did, in fact, have to do with fun- larger agendas of the contending parties damentally different convictions about – and each side used the sociobiology the nature of science – and this encom- controversy as a convenient vehicle to passed also moral/political aspects. It further these. was basically a conflict between differ- What was the nature of these conflict- ent conceptions about the way science ing agendas? If we focus on the chief ought to be done and different assess- opponents Wilson and Lewontin – two ments of the social utility of research. colleagues with offices dramatically lo-

5 Science Studies 1/2000

cated one above the other – we can iden- used as heuristic tools. In other words, tify a “positive” and a “negative” agenda. Lewontin’s program was mostly a nega- Wilson’s positive agenda was very ambi- tive one; he criticized sociobiology (em- tious. Epistemologically, it involved unit- phasizing with Mies van der Rohe that ing the social and natural sciences. For “God is in the details”), but did not seem Wilson, the social sciences were destined to have a positive alternative to offer. to become more scientific through the Later on, though, Lewontin developed incorporation of population biology and what could indeed be seen as a kind of statistics. He also saw sociobiology as positive program, emphasizing such swallowing up by the year 2000. things as the complex mutual determi- Philosophy, in turn, would take its lead nation of organism and environment.3 from sociobiological truths about hu- But that must be seen as a philosophi- man nature, thus “grounding” the ethi- cal rather than practically oriented con- cal realm in values derived from biology. tribution – it was not clear how this Underlying all this was a noble goal: to would translate to actual laboratory secure the future of mankind and life on practice, except stop people from mak- Earth. With the help of biological in- ing simplifying assumptions. sights into the truth of human nature, we Wilson’s wish to push the frontier of would be able to make wiser choices and knowledge forward as quickly as pos- steer away from unfeasible cultural sible, in bold leaps rather than by care- courses, perhaps even self-destruction. ful establishment of details, was cer- For Wilson the biologist and humanist, tainly not unique to him. It represented the main concern was to preserve the a particular scientific style of risk-taking diversity of life on Earth, including the and the charting of unknown terrain.4 diversity of the human gene pool.2 There were, in fact, matters of taste, too, For Lewontin, the scientific and social that deeply divided Wilson and Lewon- critic, it was careful and painstaking ex- tin. Wilson saw himself as a visionary, perimentation, not fanciful sociobio- drawn to unexplored, “messy” fields, logical models, that was the route to which he would then sort out and struc- good science. Lewontin wanted an ex- ture. (In view of this he described Le- perimental approach with real genes wontin as someone who liked to play it rather than models of hypothetical safe, “hugging the coast” while question- genes. He also wanted clear mechanisms ing and criticizing). Lewontin, in turn, of cause and effect, not correlations. And considered his own approach scientifi- he seemed to particularly heartily dislike cally correct, but Wilson’s scientific am- statistics as a scientific tool. Indeed, he bition overwrought and simply “not se- sometimes acted as as if he thought that rious” (see Segerstråle, 2000, ch. 3 and people who calculated such things as 8). averages actually believed in the reality What was clearly unusual in Wilson’s of averages, too, and that scientists who agenda, though, was his explicit wish to used a reductionist methodology auto- derive values from the study of biology. matically were also ontological reduc- In principle, the idea was not new: there tionists, that is, believed in the actual were in fact a number of scientific pre- existence of the atomistic entities they decessors, for instance Jacques Loeb and

6 Ullica Segerstråle

Conrad Waddington. But this was the one had only to mention the “mis- mid-1970s, and this kind of ambition for measurement” of skulls resulting in rac- a biologist was certainly unheard of in ist and sexist theories (Gould, 1981) and the liberal academic milieu of the time.5 various biologically based theories of Little wonder, then, that Wilson was per- racial supremacy. ceived as committing “the naturalistic And it was this view that Lewontin fallacy” of deriving “ought” from “is,” a shared with the Sociobiology Study philosophical mistake which politically Group. In fact, in the sociobiology con- alert academics immediately attributed troversy could be found a rather unusual to nefarious political ambitions. Wilson category of scientific practitioners, who tried to explain what he meant, but it in addition to their own scientific work was too late (Wilson, 1975b).6 regarded it as their duty to debunk what they saw as other scientists’ “bad sci- Planters and Weeders ence” in fields often far away from their own. I have characterized this group as “weeders.” Because of this self-imposed An important issue dividing the camps mission, the weeders were in direct op- was the social responsibility of the sci- position to the large majority of scien- entist. What the Sociobiology Study tists, whom I call “planters,” traditional Group feared was that any claims about scientists who believed that the goal of genetic differences between individuals science was simply to produce new would be politically abused. Lewontin “positive” knowledge. formulated the concern as follows: Planter-type scientists may or may At present our ignorance on this ques- not have thought that all science pro- tion is so enormous, our investigatory duced by their colleagues was necessar- techniques so primitive and weak, our ily “good,” but they did not feel they theoretical concepts so unformed, that it is unimaginable to me that lasting, needed to take action beyond their tra- serious truths about human nature are ditional scientific duties. In other words, possible. On the other hand the need they expected possible errors to be iden- of the socially powerful to exonerate tified and eliminated in due time by the their institutions of responsibility for regular scientific process, and they left the problems they have created is ex- tremely strong. Under these circum- it to the democratic social process to stances any investigations into the ge- decide about the ultimate use of scien- netic control of human behaviors is tific knowledge. This is why it did, in- bound to produce a pseudo-science deed, come as a surprise to many plant- that will inevitably be misused. (Le- ers when in the sociobiology controversy wontin, interview, the Harvard Gazette, November 3, 1975) (and the preceding IQ one) self-ap- pointed weeders felt free to directly ac- Indeed, policy-wise it was possible to cuse individual planters for “bad sci- point to such things as earlier ence.” Because in these planters’ own ambitions and sterilization programs minds, they were simply following stan- based on purported state-of-the art sci- dard practice in their respective fields. entific knowledge which later turned out (And so it usually was – it was just that to have been mistaken; and theory-wise the weeders considered the planters’

7 Science Studies 1/2000

standard science exactly the kind of “bad gested a genetic underpinning for a science” that was socially pernicious). number of human traits, was to legiti- While a weeder such as Gould limited mize the social status quo by advocat- himself to warning in writing about the ing a biological determinist view of hu- “mismeasure of man” and advocating man nature. He wanted to defend social “debunking” as a positive science (Gould, inequality as a natural state of affairs. 1981), people like Lewontin and his Brit- Incidentally, the members of the Socio- ish colleague , coauthors of biology Study Group were so sure about (Lewontin, Rose, and the political nature of Wilson’s book that Kamin, 1984), took upon themselves to they even felt free to challenge the read- demonstrate why the factual claims of the ers of Science to “see for themselves,” sociobiologists and IQ measurers were assuring them: wrong. Other members of the Sociobiol- There is politics aplenty in Sociobiology, ogy Study Group – notably Science for the and those of us who are its critics did People activist, Harvard molecular biolo- not put it there (Alper et al., 1976). gist Jon Beckwith – were involved in di- rect efforts to close down “dangerous” According to this model, then, Wilson research, such as an early study at Har- was trying to promote a conservative vard Medical School intended to diag- political agenda, disguising it as new and nose and follow up boys with an XYY exciting science – he was engaged in (“criminal”) gene (see e.g., Davis, 1986, “politics by scientific means.” Even some and Segerstråle 2000, ch. 11). colleagues had a hard time believing that Wilson could be so out of touch politi- Trojan Horse I: cally (e.g., Maynard Smith, interview). Politics by Scientific Means Wilson himself, however, has steadfastly denied that he was considering these But of course it was not only a matter of kinds of political consequences when he conflicting scientific “world views,” there wrote his book. According to himself, his were also strategical concerns involved primary goal was to provoke the social in the sociobiology controversy on both sciences into taking biology seriously sides. I will now turn to the well-known (e.g., Wilson, 1991, 1994 and interview early accusation that Wilson’s Sociobiol- with me in 1981). Still, the fact remains ogy was basically a political manifesto. that he did put the last chapter into the Was the real aim with Sociobiology book at a time when the late sixties’ de- political? This is what the critics claimed bate around Konrad Lorenz’ On Aggres- again and again. Indeed, in what might sion and Robert Ardrey’s The Territorial be called their “sandwich model” of So- Imperative was still in good memory. ciobiology, Wilson was accused of put- But Wilson did not take the criticism ting 500 pages on animals between his lying down. He soon responded to his two all-important chapters on humans critics in kind. And now it was his turn to camouflage his real message which to insist that the critics’ opposition to had to do with our species.7 The critics sociobiology was purely political (he seemed to take for granted that Wilson’s described them, for instance, as “tabula aim with his last chapter, where he sug- rasa Marxists”). Incidentally, Wilson has

8 Ullica Segerstråle

persisted in this till today, in various pre- to demonstrate that every trait of every sentations and publications (e.g., Wil- animal, including its behavior, was per- son, 1994, 1995), most recently in an in- fectly adapted. Adaptationists were just terview in June 2000 in Times Higher like Dr. Pangloss in Candide : they be- Education Supplement, where he de- lieved that this was the best of all pos- scribes Gould’s and Lewontin’s attack on sible worlds. (This was at least what sociobiology as purely ideologically mo- many thought the paper said). The point tivated. (Wilson’s friend Bernard Davis with using the architectural notion of went further, accusing particularly spandrels was to demonstrate that pan- Gould of “Neo-Lysenkoism,” Davis, does not hold up: a trait 1983). may have simply come about as a by- It soon became clear why Wilson was product of evolution acting on some- going from is to ought in his writings. thing else, just like four “spandrels” are One of his larger goals was to establish automatically created by two arches “a genetically accurate and therefore crossing in the ceiling of San Marco in completely fair code of ethics” as an al- Venice.8 ternative to the teachings of “the theo- The Spandrels paper, delivered at a logians.” This theme of grounding eth- Royal Society symposium, in turn trig- ics in biology got developed later in On gered protests from the so-called “adap- Human Nature (1978) and in Wilson’s tationists” (who objected to being so famous Tanner lecture (1980a) where he classified). For instance, Dawkins (1982) compares human morality to would-be pointed out that the assumption that a termite morality. But the critics already feature was adaptative was simply a re- had their interpretation ready and ex- search tool, not a belief. He said he con- tracted suitable political quotes from On sidered it “unfair” to equate modern Human Nature, even in places where adaptationism with naive perfectionism Wilson was obviously engaged in a criti- in the style of Dr. Pangloss, because de- cal commentary on established religion. spite the claims of Gould and Lewontin (1979), “there are many kinds of adap- The Spandrels of San Marco Paper tive, indeed Panglossian, explanations which would be ruled out by the mod- Gould and Lewontin had early on joined ern adaptationists” (1982, p. 50). May- forces with the Sociobiology Study nard Smith, too, dryly observed that the Group, and were thus participating in aim was not to demonstrate that nature the political campaign against sociobi- optimizes, but rather to test particular ology. Later, they turned their interest to hypotheses (Maynard Smith, 1978). a scientific critique of what they called For the critics, on the other hand, the “the adaptationist program,” of which possibility that an adaptationist frame- sociobiology was seen as a prime ex- work was a mere research heuristic ample. Their famous paper, “The Span- never even arose; it was automatically drels of San Marco and the Panglossian interpreted as a metaphysical belief with Paradigm: A Critique of the Adapta- dangerous consequences. Indeed, adap- tionist Programme” (Gould and Lewon- tation had from the very beginning been tin, 1979) accused evolutionists of trying made to sound as a political conspiracy.

9 Science Studies 1/2000

Already in their first letter the Sociobi- In other words, there were many good ology Study Group charged that “for Wil- reasons for seeing the storm around so- son, what exists is adaptive, what is ciobiology as an example of politics by adaptive is good, therefore what exists scientific means.9 is good,” and “It is a deeply conservative politics, not an understanding of mod- Trojan Horse II: ern evolutionary theory that leads one Science by Political Means to see the wonderful operation of adap- tation in every feature of human social But what if the aim of the Spandrels pa- organization” (Allen et al., 1975). It was per was, after all, not primarily political? this kind of position that Gould and Let us consider another interpretation, Lewontin later spelled out in more sci- one which actually has some empirical entific detail. backing. This is what Gould said in 1993: No wonder that many saw the Span- We faced a special and unusual sort of drels paper as a politically motivated at- problem in gaining attention and un- tack on sociobiology. This was, for in- derstanding for alternatives to adapta- stance, what a discussant of the sympo- tion. … How can you challenge some- sium thought when he heard the paper thing if most people simply regard it as (Cain, 1979). And Queller (1995) later true and therefore haven’t even con- ceptualized the possibility of another asserted in Quarterly Review of Biology reading? You can’t initiate this sort of that reform from within (Gould 1993, p. 325, italics added) In the case of Spandrels, the context was the attempted intellectual lynch- In other words, something had to be ing of a young science, sociobiology, done to rattle the complacency of the which at its most uppity claimed to ac- count for human nature in ways that received view of evolution at the time. were distasteful to many, not the least But there was a practical problem. How those with Marxist inclinations. could a scientific protest become legiti- mate unless journal space was granted The conception that the debate was po- for it? And here the problem was that litically motivated was also strengthened anti-adaptationist reasoning was too far by the social psychological mechanism from prevailing orthodoxy to be seri- of attribution of error. Each participant ously considered. But there was a way. believed that he himself was pursuing This is what Gould said at a meeting for “good science” and the truth, while the in the spring of opponent’s “incorrect” position had to 1984: be explained somehow. It obviously “could not” be scientifically based, but We opened up the debate by taking a “had to” be influenced by “ideology.” strong position. We took a definitive Neither side acknowledged the possible stand in order to open up the debate to scientific criticism. Until there is some legitimacy of the other side’s scientific legitimacy for expressing contrary convictions – a situation which appears opinions, scientists will shut up. A sci- quite typical in the world of science (evi- entist will reason: “If I say this, they will denced e.g., by Mulkay and Gilbert, 1982, accuse me of something unbiological” in their study of biochemists). (Gould, spoken comment in 1984)

10 Ullica Segerstråle

What Gould seems to be saying is that to be able to make their voices heard the sociobiology controversy was, in fact, among their colleagues. If so, what was a vehicle for the desired scientific debate their motivation? Were they defenders of about , a debate that would the “real” scientific truth of “pluralism” have had no chance on its own. In other – fighting what they saw as the “counter- words, on this view Gould’s and Lewon- reformation” of sociobiology (cf. Gould tin’s political involvement with sociobi- 1993, p. 315)? Or were they, in launching ology would have been a strategical ma- and promoting their particular anti- neuver aiming at gaining a later hearing adaptationist program, rather defending for their basically scientific argument their own scientific interests? Or both? about adaptation. The anti-adapta- Was the whole sociobiology controversy tionist wedge could not have been skillfully engineered by the two pair- driven in without the political contro- hunting raptors, Gould and Lewontin, versy about sociobiology. (Indeed, Le- for the singular purpose of boosting an wontin at the same meeting observed – at the time – scientifically vulnerable that “the brouhaha about sociobiology position? If so, the whole political up- has had good effect in biology” and that heaval by the “the debate had helped evolutionary bi- would fall into the rather odd category ology”). of science by political means. Here we have, then, another type of What, then, of the other members of Trojan Horse approach. The problem is the Sociobiology Study Group, who had how to create legitimacy for an unpopu- no scientific agenda of this sort and lar idea that may easily be rejected out nothing obvious to gain career wise of hand. The answer is: draw attention (since they were outside the field of evo- to the new idea by making it “interest- lutionary biology)? Were they when they ing” to scientists through its moral/po- stirred up political dust around sociobi- litical connotations. Then, use this ology and adaptation, unwittingly serv- newly generated interest to gain journal ing Gould and Lewontin, helping the lat- space, perhaps in the form of an “opin- ter to put their two-step plan in action? ion paper.” Finally, at the right moment, This may have been the case. Still, the eliminate the moral/political envelope, moral/political concern was enough to and what emerges is the original scien- unite the group, which spontaneously tific position (the critique of adapta- formed when Wilson’s book was an- tionism), which could not have been nounced as an “event” on the first page considered in an unsupported form, of the New York Times on May 28, 1975. since it would have been dismissed out And certainly Gould and Lewontin of hand as not scientifically sound. In the genuinely shared the group’s outrage meantime, more scientific support about sociobiology. would have been mobilized for the new, Now let us go to Wilson and ask if a unorthodox view.10 similar analysis can be applied to him. This interpretation – based on a tip What if Wilson, too, wanted to do sci- from the horse’s mouth – depicts Gould ence by political means, using the sec- and Lewontin as deliberately breaking ond Trojan horse strategy? How would the rules of the scientific game in order that have been engineered? Let us take

11 Science Studies 1/2000

a second look at the publicity campaign Sociobiology Study Group. Did they, in around Sociobiology. Wilson had put in fact, with all their spontaneous anti-so- several years’ worth of work in that tome, ciobiological campaigning, simply fall including learning to master the (for into a ready-made trap set by master him) new field of vertebrate biology. Ob- strategist Wilson (with Harvard Univer- viously he wanted the world to know sity Press and Boyce Rensberger)? about and appreciate his synthesis. Just There is one difference, though, be- like other academics, he wanted recog- tween Gould and Lewontin and Wilson nition. in regard to this second Trojan horse As a matter of fact, there is a Trojan model. Sociobiology would probably horse theory involving Wilson as well. have sold well enough even without the There are actually those who suspect controversy – just like Wilson’s The Insect that Wilson’s last chapter on humans was Societies, another large coffee table deliberately included to generate scan- book, published in 1971 with the same dal, and through this, interest in Socio- press. This is suggested by the praise biology. For instance, some biologists I Wilson got for Sociobiology from many interviewed in 1981 at the International of his biological colleagues, who greatly Ethology Congress suggested that “Wil- appreciated his synthetic effort.11 In son wanted to make a splash”, which other words, Wilson did not really need might be interpreted along these lines. a scandal – although nobody doubts that The critics of Wilson, of course, regis- the controversy greatly boosted the sales tered all the publicity surrounding the of his book and the spread of the gospel book: the first-page article announcing of sociobiology. And no doubt largely the book in the New York Times, an early because of the controversy around his review in The New York Times Book Re- book and the name he gave the field, it view, and a vast pre-publicity campaign, was Wilson that now in the eyes of the all of which they unhesitantly gave a world became identified with ‘sociobi- political interpretation (Alpert et al., ology.’ (This was rather irritating to 1978; Beckwith, 1981-82). But the pub- many of the British behavioral ecologists licity campaign around Sociobiology can and functional ethologists who had been be given a different spin. Allan Mazur actually doing “sociobiology” for years – (1981) suggested that New York Times however, restricting themselves to ani- science journalist Boyce Rensberger’s mals). provocative suggestion in his first-page Now what happens if we apply Trojan article – that Wilson’s last chapter about horse II simultaneously to both sides in humans was bound to create contro- the sociobiology debate? We get a situa- versy – came to act as a self-fulfilling tion where scientists on both sides in a prophecy (Mazur, 1981). In other words, controversy are doing their best to create someone somewhere would be sure to political scandal in order to promote their react, and voila, the desired controversy scientific agendas. We would here have an would emerge! extraordinary situation of synergy be- That interpretation is interesting, but tween the critics of sociobiology and their does throw a strange light on the actions target – all while the world thought they of the fierce critics of sociobiology in the were at each others’ throats! This is a

12 Ullica Segerstråle

model of “science by political means” practical goal of effective management pushed to the extreme. It is hard to be- of the Earth as a whole (this became lieve that this would really have been the clearer with Consilience, 1998). case at the outset of the sociobiology con- And if we follow Wilson’s development troversy. But something like this did seem over time, we might actually reconstruct true for a later stage of the debate, which his career as a series of Trojan horses. I have characterized as a symbiosis Wilson I, the “bad” sociobiologist over (Segerstråle 2000, ch. 3 and 16). time emerged as Wilson II, the “good” environmentalist, known to a new gen- Russian Dolls eration of academics (particularly Wil- son, 1992). Did this mean that Wilson In reality I see in the debate something later gave up on sociobiology? Not at all. like a nested hierarchy of Trojan horses, Sociobiology was nested inside environ- a type of Russian doll situation, with mentalism, more closely in the form of both sides in the controversy pursuing “biophilia,” our natural affinity with na- their particular moral-cum-scientific ture (Wilson, 1984). And sociobiology agendas. also appears as a Russian doll inside his I’ll start with Wilson and give some recent idea of “consilience” or unity of examples. As can be gleaned from Socio- knowledge (Wilson, 1998). Wilson’s biology, , and particu- model for the unification of knowledge larly a talk he gave to a group of theolo- has at its core exactly the coevolution- gians at a Star Island conference in 1980, ary approach from Genes, Mind, and Wilson’s early ambition was to provide a Culture, a mathematical explication of a materialist alternative to religion with new version of sociobiology that Wilson the help of evolutionary biology (Wilson, co-wrote with Charles Lumsden in 1981. 1980b). He wanted to derive values from But let us now take a peek into the in- nature to provide an alternative to the ner one of Gould’s and Lewontin’s Tro- theologians’ moral teachings. What is jan horses. Here we have a scientific more, he hoped to be able to derive a tra- truth (anti-adaptationism) which con- jectory for mankind’s future – as a sub- tains inside itself a moral/political truth. stitution for divine prophecy – with the Gould’s and Lewontin’s fear was that help of a set of formulas involving popu- “vulgar adaptationism” would give the lation genetics, the “hardest” branch of innocent layman wrong ideas about ev- evolutionary biology. So Wilson’s ambi- erything in society being for the best. tion to make sociobiology as quantita- That kind of biological Panglossianism tive and mathematical as possible (a would be easily interpreted as a support move which irritated particularly Le- for the social status quo as the best of all wontin) was actually aimed to serve the possible worlds. Indeed, these critics moral agenda contained in his inner seem constantly to have had the impli- Russian doll. His other great ambition, cations for human society in mind when his epistemological quest for uniting the they discussed adaptation and adapta- natural and social sciences (which irri- tionism. The following quote beautifully tated especially social scientists) was, captures Lewontin’s anti-adaptationist again, ultimately serving the moral and moral-cum-scientific belief. It is hard to

13 Science Studies 1/2000

believe that he is talking strictly biology a victory: he is increasingly internation- when he says: ally celebrated. But his enemy Gould is also extremely popular. In 1999 Gould The truth is that evolution has taken and is taking place and that it is often was elected the president of the Ameri- direct for particular can Association for the Advancement of character states that is responsible for Science; his books are popular best- differences between species. But it is sellers among the general public. And also true that some significant fraction Gould has a quite different message for of evolutionary change has occurred without creating the best of all possible the public than Wilson, with conclusions worlds. It is true that “many are called that are comforting for many. Obviously, but few are chosen,” but it is equally many truths can be defended at the true that “the race is not to the swift nor same time! Controversy pays.12 the battle to the strong nor yet bread to What neither Wilson nor his oppo- the wise … but time and chance hap- peneth to them all (Lewontin 1981, ital- nents Gould or Lewontin are doing, ics added) though, is to disconnect science from values. That is what Thomas Henry And Gould has in a similar spirit over the Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog,” tried to do years developed a number of objections with Darwin’s theory. He said that we to adaptation, from punctuated equilib- should work at the social level with the ria (Eldredge and Gould, 1972; Gould help of education to combat any seem- and Eldredge 1977), to the notion of ingly negative implications from biology. “exaptation” (Gould and Vrba, 1982), and But this is forgotten by both sides in the to the emphasis on “contingency” in American sociobiology debate. On the evolution (Gould, 1989, 1996). other hand, the disjunction between sci- ence and values is the typical “default The Sociobiology Controversy: position” of British “sociobiologists” A Preparation for the Human (they dislike the name!) such as Richard Genome Debate Dawkins and John Maynard Smith. (13) I believe that we should see the socio- We have, then, two basic types of De- biology debate as a kind of “dry run” for fenders of the Truth. There are the natu- the important discussion that is now ralist sociobiologists, who think it is use- emerging around the human genome – ful to consider hypothetical genes “for” both its scientific and moral and politi- behavior in their evolutionary models, cal aspects. Much of the forthcoming dis- and the critics who protest that no such cussion will have to do with the extent to genes have ever been seen and should which genes can really be said to repre- not be speculated about – even in the sent “blueprints” and how much predic- case of animals, but particularly in re- tive value there is, in fact, in knowing the gard to humans. genetic makeup, without detailed infor- The battle continues, among the De- mation about how these genes get actu- fenders of the Truth. Meanwhile, many ally expressed in a particular individual. of the defenders are bestselling authors, (For a detailed discussion of the problems and continue getting prizes and honor- involved here, see Bateson and Martin, ary doctorates. Wilson has no doubt won 2000). But this was exactly what both

14 Ullica Segerstråle

Francis Collins and Craig Venter, the col- need to recommend protective legisla- laborators on the final stretch of the Hu- tion and policy measures in the same man Genome Project, were stressing re- breath as they announced their progress, peatedly in the media on June 26, 2000, and that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, too, when they announced that the end of the voiced this kind of concerns. genome project was in sight. Additionally The sociobiology debate itself, as scaf- they – and also President Clinton and folding for the future genome discus- British Prime Minister Tony Blair – em- sion, may actually have been the biggest phasized the urgent need for legislation Trojan horse of them all. so that people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their genetic makeup. They also pointed to the need for a health insurance policy that is fair and available to everybody. In other words, they seemed to be addressing head-on many of the typical objections that had been raised by critics of research in the genetic basis of human behavior. It seems to me that the sensitivity to these kinds of issues on the part of sci- entific and political leaders surely has something to do with the intense debate Notes around sociobiology over the last quar- ter century. The arguments pro and con 1 For instance, he downplayed the impor- in regard to the hypothetical genes in the tance of IQ for social success and declared sociobiology (and IQ) debate was a sort (with many other biologists at the time) of rehearsal for the real debate about the that race was not a biologically useful characteristic. real genes to be eventually identified by the human genome project. Whatever 2 Wilson had “inherited” many of these concerns from the 1960s discussion about new, detailed genetic knowledge the ge- the conflict between technological and nome project will bring about (and here human evolution, reflected in the think- we have an opposition between opti- ing of Konrad Lorenz, Jacques Ellul, and mists such as Wilson (e.g., 1998) and others. skeptics, such as Lewontin (e.g., 2000 3 This was also connected to a type of dia- a,b), one thing is clear. The sociobiology lectical Marxist thinking (see e.g., Levins debate served to remind the public that and Lewontin, 1995). cutting edge science has sometimes 4 For instance someone like Nobel laureate been wrong: it brought to academic and David Baltimore, who got in trouble in the public attention the potential problems so-called Baltimore affair (cf. Segerstråle, 1993) may have had a similar picture of of discrimination and the consequent science proceeding in bold leaps rather need for appropriate social measures. than petty detail. The critics of sociobiology can regard it 5 Holton (1978) discussed a number of syn- as a recognition for their efforts that the thesizers before Wilson with ambitions on leaders of the genome project felt the an even grander scale.

15 Science Studies 1/2000

6 In On Human Nature (Wilson, 1978) it psychology has tried self-consciously to became rather clear that one reason for distance itself from sociobiology, by em- Wilson’s “evangelist” style was that he ac- phasizing that it is dealing with the tually had a bone to pick with established evolved architecture of the human mind, religion. He was raised as a Southern Bap- and is interested in human universals. tist, but later became disenchanted it. His There is one difference that it recognizes, critics, however, interpreted even his ex- though, and that is male female differ- plicit critique of the Church as having a ences. (The “Bible” of evolutionary psy- conservative sociopolitical intent (see chology is Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby, Segerstråle, 2000, ch. 3). The Adapted Mind, 1992, but there are also a number of more popular evolutionary 7 Meanwhile, animal behaviorists typically psychology books). regarded the first and last chapters on humans in Wilson’s book as a distraction 13 In Segerstråle (2000), ch. 19, I distinguish from the interesting studies and theories between what I call a “regular” and a regarding animal social behavior – in “hyper” Enlightenment quest. Represen- other words, they had a different type of tatives of the latter insist on pursuing sci- “sandwich model.” entific and moral/political truth at the same time; representatives of the former 8 Actually, the correct architectural term for keep these ambitions apart. those spaces is “pendentives,” not span- drels, according to (1995). 9 No doubt the opposition to sociobiology also came in handy for organizing the aca- demic left around a common cause. 10 Interestingly, from his own description of the paper, Gould himself seems to believe that also the original oral presentation of the scientific criticism required a number References of extrascientific props (esthetic, moral, and so on) in order to be effective; that is Allen, E. et al. why he mobilized spandrels and Candide 1975 Letter. The New York Review of Books (Gould, 1993). It was Gould who was the November 13:182, 184-6. main author of the paper and the one who Alper, J. et al. delivered it at the Royal Society Sympo- 1976 “The Implications of Sociobiology.” Sci- sium (for more about this, see Gould, 1993 ence 192: 424-425. and Segerstråle, 2000, ch. 6). Alper, J., Beckwith, J. and Miller, L. F. 1978 “Sociobiology Is A Political Issue. In A. 11 In 1989 the international Animal Behav- Caplan (ed.), The Sociobiology Debate. ior Society “rated Sociobiology the most New York: Harper & Row. important book on animal behavior of all Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. and J. Tooby time, edging out even Darwin’s 1872 clas- 1992 The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford sic, The Expression of the Emotions in Man University Press. and Animals “ (Wilson, 1994, p. 330-1) Bateson, P. and Martin, P. 12 And now with the emergence of “evolu- 2000 Design for A Life: How Behavior and tionary psychology” there is a new round Personality Develop. New York: Simon in the controversy Evolutionary psychol- and Schuster. ogy has also been duly criticized, largely Beckwith, J. along the same lines as sociobiology be- 1981-82 “The Political Use of Sociobiology in fore and often by the same people (e.g., the United States and Europe.” The Rose and Rose, 2000). Still, evolutionary Philosophical Forum 13 (2-3): 311-321.

16 Ullica Segerstråle

Cain, A. ture. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Inc. 1979 “Introduction to General Discussion.” Levins, R and Lewontin, R. C. Proceedings of the Royal Society of 1985 The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, London 205 B: 599-604. MA: Press Davis, B. D. Lewontin, R. C. 1983 “Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the Press.” 1981 “On Constraints and Adaptation.” Be- The Public Interest (Fall): 41-59. havioral and Brain Sciences 4: 244-45. 1986 Storm over Biology : Essays on Science, 2000a The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Sentiment, and Public Policy. Buffalo, Environment. Cambridge, MA: Har- NY: Prometheus Books. vard University Press.. Dawkins, R. 2000b It Ain’t Necessarily So: The Human 1976 The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford Uni- Genome Project and Other Scientific versity Press. Myths. New York: New York Review of 1982 The Extended Phenotype. The Gene as Books Press. Unit of Selection. Oxford and San Fran- Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S. and Kamin, L. cisco: Freeman. 1984 Not in Our Genes. New York: Pantheon Dennett, D. Books. 1995 Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. New York: Lumsden, C. L and Wilson, E. O. Simon and Schuster. 1981 Genes, Mind and Culture: The Coevo- Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J. lutionary Process. Cambridge, MA and 1972 “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative London: Harvard University Press. to Phyletic Gradualism.” In T. J. M. Maynard Smith, J. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. 1978b “Optimization Theory in Evolution.” San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. Annual Review of and System- Gould, S. J. atics 9: 31-56. 1981 The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. Mazur, A. W. Norton. 1981 “Media Coverage and Public Opinion 1989 Wonderful Life. New York: W. W. Norton. on Scientific Controversies.” Journal of 1993 “Fulfilling the Spandrels of Word and Communication (Spring): 106-115. Mind.” Pp. 310-336 in Selzer, J. (ed.), Mulkay, M. and Gilbert, G. N. Understanding Scientific Prose. Madi- 1982 “Accounting for Error.” Sociology 16: son, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 165-83. 1996 Full House: The Spread of Excellence Queller, D. from Plato to Darwin. New York: Har- 1995 “The Spaniels of St. Marx and the mony Books. Panglossian Paradox: A Critique of A Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. Rhetorical Programme.” Quarterly Re- 1977 “Punctuated Equilibria.” Paleobiology view of Biology 70 (4), December: 485- 3: 115-151. 489. Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. D. Rose, H. and Rose, S. (eds.) 1979 “The Spandrels of San Marco and the 2000 Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the . London: Adaptationist Programme.” Proceed- Jonathan Cape. ings of the Royal Society of London B, Segerstråle, U. 205: 581-598. 2000 Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Gould, S. J. and Vrba, E. Science in the Sociobiology Debate and 1981 “Exaptation: A Missing Term in the Sci- Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University ence of Form.” Paleobiology 8: 4-15. Press. Holton, G. Thomas, L. 1978 “The New Synthesis?” Pp. 75-97 in M. 1981 “Debating the Unknowable.” The At- S. Gregory, A. Silvers and D. Sutch lantic Monthly, July: 49-52. (eds.), Sociobiology and Human Na-

17 Science Studies 1/2000

Wilson, E. O. 1971 The Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1975a Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1975b “Human decency is animal.” The New York Times Magazine, Oct. 12. 1978 On Human Nature. New York: Bantam Books. 1980a “Comparative Social Theory.” The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, Uni- versity of Michigan 1979. Pp. 48-73. in S. M. McMurrin (ed.), The Tanner Lec- tures on Human Values. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980b “The Relation of Science to Theology.” Zygon. 15: 425-434. 1984 Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1991 “Sociobiology and the Test of Time.” Pp. 77-80 in M. H. Robinson and L. Tiger (eds.), Man and Beast Revisited. Wash- ington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992 The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press. 1994 Naturalist. Cambridge, MA: Washing- ton, D. C.: Island Press. 1995 “Science and Ideology.” Academic Questions Vol. 8, No. 3. 1998 Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Ullica Segerstråle Social Sciences Department Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, USA

18