Defenders of the Truth: the battle for science in the sociobiology debate and
beyond by Ullica Segerstr氓le, Oxford, 拢20, ISBN 0198505051
STUDYING insects seems a harmless enough profession. So why should an
entomologist get heckled at public meetings, have water poured over his head, be
branded a racist by colleagues and even be physically assaulted for his
views?
Today, E. O. Wilson of Harvard University is regarded as one of modern
biology鈥檚 seminal thinkers, but for most of the late 1970s and early 1980s,
Wilson was a hate figure for most on the left. Just what was all the fuss
about?
Advertisement
The answer lies in Wilson鈥檚 1975 book Sociobiology: The New
Synthesis, in which he used his knowledge of insects to champion the view
that genes might play a role in human behaviour. This is hardly headline news
today. But a quarter of a century ago it went down like a lead balloon.
Now, thanks to Ullica Segerstr氓le鈥檚 thorough analysis of the controversy,
readers can judge for themselves whether Wilson is a hero or villain.
Segerstr氓le, a sociologist at the Illinois Institute of Technology, observed the
controversy as it unfolded.
In Sociobiology, Wilson suggested that traits such as aggression,
kindness and sexual strategy had a genetic component. To his many critics, he
seemed to be saying we鈥檙e not masters of our destiny, and that humans are driven
primarily by self-interest鈥攁 very capitalist message in what was then
predominantly a left-wing world.
Segerstr氓le says the debate鈥檚 roots were over the lack of scientific
evidence. Wilson鈥檚 ideas were speculative, and his scientific critics believed
he ought to have kept quiet until he could back them up. But Wilson and his
supporters countered by arguing that evolutionary biology wouldn鈥檛 progress
without creative hypothesising.
The science, however, remained on the sidelines. To the public, the
controversy was mainly political. Radical anti-racists and feminists joined the
fray, labelling Wilson as racist, sexist and even fascist.
Segerstr氓le鈥檚 book, however, should be viewed as more than just a history
lesson. It provides an insight into how the political beliefs of scientists
affect their work in science. And it asks pointed questions. For example, is it
a coincidence that so many of Wilson鈥檚 critics were Marxists? And to what extent
did Marxism influence their views on genes and behaviour?
Marxism may be yesterday鈥檚 fashion. But these questions have enormous
relevance today, as controversies in science affect our everyday lives more than
ever before. When it comes to BSE, cloning and genetically modified foods, can
we be sure that the opinions of scientists are 鈥渙bjective鈥�?
Another critical issue raised by the sociobiology affair is whether it鈥檚
right for scientists to publicise ideas without thinking through the
consequences. Should scientists be held responsible for the subsequent use of
their ideas?
Judge the issue purely on science, though, and there鈥檚 no doubt that Wilson
emerges a winner. Wilson鈥檚 ideas are now firmly entrenched in evolutionary
biology. You鈥檙e far more likely to be attacked for relegating the role of genes
than for championing them.