Science For the People?

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I do not profess to be a sociobiologist, but I admit to a certain involvement in the discipline. Having read some of the literature and spoken with a few sociobiologists, it was with interest that I turned to your piece in the Crimson of Jan. 16, 1981.

I commend you for your presentation of the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate. Few people take the time to do their homework and present the results in an organized manner. But it is not without the customary journalistic bias that you write.

Relying as extensively as you did on INCAR's pathetic critique of sociobiology weakened your point. I'm surprised you neglected to mention Science for the People. The fact is there is a paucity of intelligent, well written objections to sociobiology. The most blatant opponents, INCAR and Science for the People, have fanatical undertones and political issues at stake.

You might ask not whether Wilson is responsible for "defending his theories against distortion and misuse" but whether he is responsible for the actual manipulation and implications of his ideas. This is an important topic but an irresolvable one. Wilson cannot possibly bear the responsibility for how various minds crank perverse motives out of sociobiology. Mr. Nobel had little notion of the ways people would exploit his invention, dynamite.

It is true that sociobiology is not capable of "predicting features of social organization." At the most, a theory should, as Clifford Geertz wrote, "anticipate" future development. You imply that Wilson prefers to leave his scientific theory "blurred." In fact, he welcomes "a serious discussion" of his ideas. But seriousness is not present in the manifestoes of either INCAR or Science for the People. Victoria Drake '83