The Natural vs. the Natural

PASSED THROUGH an ideological sieve, scientific theories and research often become strained and shredded, exiting in pieces that no longer resemble the original. Only implications and half-truths remain, dislodged from the context in which they were introduced. These then become todder for the idealogue who speaks zealously and dogmatically to an audience which hears only the costs, dangers and harmful future consequences of the theory under discussion.

Sociobiology, a discipline concerned with the study of the genetic basis of social behavior in insects, animals and man, has occasioned such controversy for the past several years. On Friday, December 12, members of the International Committee Against Racism (INCAR)brought their attack to a Harvard classroom, voicing their opinions at Baird Professor of Science E.O. Wilson's Core course, "Evolutionary Biology." The demonstrators chose Wilson's class because he is both the symbolic and the scientific guru of Sociobiology by virtue of his two books Sociobiology: The New Synthesis(1975) and On Human Nature(1978). Besides launching personal attacks on Wilson, his "racist theory," and calling for public debate, INCAR seeks practical action: the removal of Wilson's class from the Core Curriculum.

WILSON's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis is a scientific textbook. It is technical, detailed and precise, packed with specific examples of insect and animal behavior. As an ambitious comparative and evolutionary study, it received almost universal acclaim as a significant contribution to biological science. The neophyte will see no cause for argument about Wilson's project--at first glance the book seems to hold no ethical or political point of view. Wilson steers clear of rhetoric. When discussing a potentially controversial subject such as religious belief, he neither defends the value of faith nor criticizes its conflict with scientific evidence. He avoids the ethical morass and focuses on the religious impulse as a product of human evolution.

His goals appear purely academic: to search for the biological universals of human nature that may provide an explanation for human social evolution. Wilson means to bring the science of biology into conjunction with anthropology, psychology and sociology to provide a new, broader foundation for the social sciences.

As one might expect, little political criticism of his work on corals, termites or baboons exists. Only expert ethologists bother to scrutinize these sections, which constitute the bulk of Wilson's first book. Only when Wilson discusses humans does he receive the attention of a broad and motley audience of anthropologists, philosophers and historians. There are two possible explanations. One might be that while Wilson's analysis of species below homo sapiensis scientifically masterful, his discussion of humans is simply not up to par and his new audience is taking him to task. This is probably not the case. Instead, Wilson's writing about humans are simply unacceptable, either psychologically or politically, to many people. But what makes his writing so inflammatory?

WILSON ENTERED a longstanding intellectual debate when he published Sociobiology: the "Nature vs. Nurture" controversy. This dispute in its extreme form, pits the idea of human destiny determined solely by genes against the notion that environment molds the individual with the genetic constitution having only trivial effects. Most participants in the controversy hold views lying somewhere in between. They might, for instance, hold that while sexual drives derive from the genetic heritage, their expression is culturally defined and varies with changing mores.

Wilson did not enter the debate naively: he began and ended his book with provocative chapters (the first was entitled "The Morality of the Gene") in which he speculated on altruism, religion and ethical principles. but the ideas he presented were not as radical as the response to them would indicate. The reaction was vocal because taking a middle-ground position in the controversy offers no safe harbor. When Wilson writes, with self-conscious moderation, "The evidence is strong that almost all differences between human societies are based on learning and social conditioning rather than heredity. And yet perhaps not quite all...," he leaves himself open to attack from both fronts, the most strenuous coming from strict environmental determinists. This group believes that giving any weight to the effects of genetic determinants means that human behavior is somehow limited. Admitting this, they say, is tantamount to admitting that some social problems are insoluble. Perfect egalitarianism can and should be promoted. The implementation of this account has already had effects, such as the elimination in many schools of classes for the gifted.

The strict environmental determinist has no use for sociobiology. It offers only a defeatist and counter-productive program. But taking the view that genes may determine potentialities and proclivities, and that individual development, reflects conditioning plus genetic endowment, sheds a different light on sociobiology. Seen in this way, Wilson's sociobiology could prove helpful in pointing to which traits may be affected by education and which results may be expected.

THERE ARE THREE other attacks often levelled at Wilson's theory. The first is largely philosophical and indicts sociobiology only indirectly as part of a larger conspiracy. This attack objects to the sociobiology stance which insists that humans are passive vehicles for either our genes or our environment. Strongly anti-determinist, the proponents of this argument insist that humans are active agents who shape their own destinies. In short, it is a plea for the power of free will. This position largely ignores the material in Wilson's book rather than confronting it.

Another group offers methodological criticisms of sociobiology. In particular, they question Wilson's reliance on analogy and metaphor, his speculations on human prehistory, and even his postulation of selective advantages for types of human behavior, such as aggression or homosexuality, which they regard as arbitrary and invalid categories.

A third group attacks sociobiology as scientism. They believe that Wilson has overextended the powers of science into areas where it has no business treading. They hold that human behavior and culture can never be reduced to biological terms, and that Wilson's attempt is impotent because culture must be approached at a different level with different principles and models. Value systems will never be fashioned by reconstructing the evolution of the mind or defining the neurochemical responses of the brain.

INTERESTINGLY, INCAR makes none of these four arguments. Theirs is purely political. They claim that Wilson's 1978 interview with the French newspaper Figaro was used by right wing groups to promote racism. Wilson is responsible for this abuse of evolutionary theory and INCAR believes that the possibility of it recurring must be precluded. Sociobiology must be eliminated and Wilson is guilty by association.

INCAR's attack is different from the four other attacks on sociobiology. It is not just an altercation between rival camps in the academic community. Their demands are not for discussion but for subordination. If "Evolutionary Biology" is removed from the Core Curriculum, it will be a victory for ideology over academic freedom. If political dogma dominates and bullies science as it did in the frightening example of Lysenko, the freedom to know will have no meaning.

This demand is as unsavory as suggesting the banishment of Darwin's theory because it could potentially be used by Social Darwinists. Society must discuss problems which may arise with new knowledge and its misuse, rather than preventing the possibility of such knowledge by abridging intellectual freedom.

INCAR'S SUPPORT has been dwindling for years and it found little support in the Harvard lecture hall when Wilson offered the group time to present their views to his class at the end of lecture. We should be thankful for the last gasps of this group. Yet the position they take forces consideration of a more pressing question: To what extent is Wilson, or any other scientist, responsible for defending his theories against distortion and misuse?

Virtually any scientific knowledge can be applied in both beneficial and harmful ways. Scientists cannot foresee the full range of uses, much less all the consequences, of their theories. But if they lose sole possession of their ideas, they must continue to demand accurate representation. Although they are not responsible for any abuse, they are responsible for publicizing this abuse. Like T.S. Eliot's literary critic, the scientist's duty is to interpret and correct.

An attack such as INCAR's, then, demonstrates the need for Wilson to once again clarify some of his hazy positions. He has made himself vulnerable by using certain catchwords in his books which have caused concern. What exactly does he mean when he says the goal of sociobiology is "to predict features of social organization"? Does he really believe that sociobiology can direct the "planned society" he believes is "inevitable" in the 21st century? Wilson must clarify these imprecisions.

It is difficult to understand how anyone who reads Wilson's books could believe his disposition is invidious. The theory he presents is certainly not racist. With the emphasis on the biological unity of homo sapiens,sociobiology could serve as a potent antidote to racism. If Wilson is a visionary, as many believe, his vision is still blurry. Sociobiology remains imprecise and amorphous. It is not a specific theory about human behavior, and allows for a wide range of possibilities. There is no doubt, however, that Wilson remains more concerned with scientific theory than with social prophecy.

INCAR's demand for the elimination of a useful scientific field with unexplored potential is misdirected and a threat to academic freedom. A serious discussion of Wilson's theories is not.