Redetermining Genetic Determinism

FOR THOSE WHO thought that the nature-nurture controversy was settled with E.O. Wilson's On Human Nature, think again. The flurry of sociobiological literature which followed the publication of Wilson's Pulitzer Prize-winning book has since died down, it seems, and the pendulum might just be swinging the other way Richard Lewontin's new book. Not in Our Genes--which he co-authored with Steven Rose and Leon Kamin--presents the other side of the debate over genetic determinism.

Lewontin and his co-authors have written a lucid and energetic rebuttal to the widely publicized news that genes control and and determine all social behavior. Since 1975, at least three new sociobiological journals have started up, and scores of papers and books have been written, following Wilson's celebrated Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. (He later focused on the most controversial aspect of his theory, human sociobiology, in On Human Nature.) Biologists immediately praised the work as an integration of evolutionary biology and anthropology. Sociobiology came into vogue in the late 70s and early 80s, when it was used as a basis for arguments in fields as diverse as economics and political science.

Not in Our Genes provides a cogent and entertaining alternative to the much-publicized sociobiological studies.

For years, the authors have been ardent opponents of anti-egalitarian trends in science. Lewtontin, a professor of Biology at Harvard and a prominent evolutionary geneticist, has been particularly outspoken in his anti-sociobiology crusade. Rose, neurobiology professor at the Open University in England, has written on the social implications of biological and psychological research. Kamin, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, uncovered one of the most fraudulent scientific studies ever conducted: Sir Cyril Burt's experiments on intelligence.

Lewontin and his co-authors point out that ostensibly objective studies such as those done by Burt are merely tools which these scientists use to confirm a racist and sexist status quo. Biological determinism is just as subjective as any political theory, Lewontin asserts, and must be considered as such. He writes:

Biological determinism (biologism) has been a powerful mode of explaining the observed inequalities of status, wealth, and power in contemporary industrialist capitalist societies, and of defining human "universals" of behavior as natural characteristics of these societies. As such, it has gratefully been seized upon as a political legitimator by the New Right...

As Lewontin notes, one must recognize that scientists operate within a social and political framework and will naturally ask questions which will substantiate their biases. For instance, a chemical firm researching the causes of cancer will be more likely to fund scientists investigating the genetic causes of cancer than they will be to fund those looking into environmental causes, which could blame their own product.

In debunking the myth of impartiality of science, the authors compare the authority granted to "science" to that once reserved for the Church.

Point by point, the authors of Not in Our Genes shoot down the traditional studies which confirm existing social conditions. Cyril Burt's often-quoted identical twin studies, conducted in the 1950s, supposedly proved the inhabitability of IQ. Those who would later argue for a meritocracy based on IQ--such as Arthur Jensen, in his famous and influential article on the subject in the Harvard Educational Review published in 1969--drew upon Burt's data. But Lewontin and his cohorts point out the fraudulence of Burt's evidence. Not only are there serious problems with the validity of these separated twin studies, but also there are differences between the number of twin studies conducted, depending on which part of Burt's work is read.

Most importantly. Not in Our Genes questions the basic premise that IQ tests measure intelligence at all. Most psychologists today realize that IQ differences in various ethnic and racial groups demonstrate not an inherent discrepancy in the intelligence of these groups, but a fault in the test itself.

Just as importantly, the authors point out that biological deterministic dogma has falsely labelled various gender differences as facts. Men are taller than women, less emotionally dependent, more exploratory and able to orient themselves in open spaces, more visual and more reponsive to simple stimuli, and in general more successful. And the list goes on. But as the authors assert, these "facts" are simply the selective observations of scientists who wish to support their preconceived notions of a society divided along sex lines.

Occasionally, the authors can become heavy-handed in their rhetoric. In discussing the fallacy of biologically-based gender differences, for example, they assert that they "...will show that they [conventional sexist studies] represent a systematic selection, misrepresentation, or improper extrapolation of the evidence, larded with prejudice and based in poor theory."

After refuting the pure biochemical basis for schizophrenia, the classic mental disorder that has been so often studied by biochemists and psychobiologists, the authors arrive at the central grist for their mill: sociobiology. In fact, at times, Not in Our Genes seems like a diatribe against Lewtontin's ideological opponent Edward O. Wilson. Quoting Wilson repeatedly. Lewontin points to the entomologist as the prototypical biological determinist.

These pointed accusations are natural, considering that Lewontin and Wilson represent completely opposite points of view. Lewontin and his co-authors carefully choose the most extreme and controversial claims of E.O. Wilson, and choose to ignore his many statements qualifying the power of genes in controlling genetic inheritance.

Perhaps there is more of a middle ground than Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin realize. The dialectical interaction between organisms and their environment proposed by the authors might be more similar to Wilson's concepts of heritability than the authors would like to acknowledge.

But surely Not in Our Genes is an important addition to the literature on the subject.

Undoubtedly, the controversy will rage on, but Lewontin and his co-authors have done an excellent job of criticizing the sociobiological point of view. Not in Our Genes is an entertaining and informative critique of the too-often trumpeted cause of genetic determinism.