E. Jones 2007-03-07

5 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

This book is a semi-postmodernist criticism of a) biological determinism, and b) the widespread belief that scientists are first and foremost seekers of "truth", rather than furtherers of their own careers. Lewontin takes the argument that there is only so far science can go in explaining humanity, and that one should keep in mind that all scientific claims are convoluted with the power structure from which they arise. I agree with these points, but there's nothing particularly special about them...no serious scientist today would ever suggest that one's personality (let alone all of society) is written in the genetic code, nor dispute that politics often/usually does interfere in the functioning of science as we wish it would be. Lewontin seems to paint scientists with a rather broad brush. Worse, he makes liberal use of the "naturalistic fallacy" (the idea that what is "natural" must be "good" and vice-versa) in much of his reasoning, as when he suggests that Darwinism implies that social inequities are good, necessary, and unavoidable. On top of all this, he fails to notice (or at least to mention) that the door swings both ways, that skepticism about the reach of science (as he seems to advocate) can be used to reinforce unsavory sociopolitical structures just as easily as can unquestioning belief in science. One need only look at Senator James Inhofe, the Discovery Institute, and various other right-wing American institutions to see how the belief that "there are just some questions science can't answer" can be used to justify all manner of ridiculous and/or dangerous behavior. Most of Lewontin's concerns have (since this book's 1991 publication) been addressed and, in my opinion, refuted by the recent writings of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker. Frankly, I'm surprised this book has stayed in print this long.

Aaron Swartz 2006-05-07

1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

This fascinating book turns the harsh critical eye of the scientific method back on the field of science itself, questioning everything you thought you knew about the discipline. Think germs cause disease? Think that evolution works through survival of the fittest? Think that people are constrained by their DNA? Richard Lewontin, the preeminent Harvard biologist, will cause you to think again.

A written-down version of Lewontin's Massey Lectures, the book is eminently readable while carefully hewing to the scientific method. Anyone who loves science will love this book.

Omri Tal 2005-03-29

14 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

Some interesting and original points are made but the factual and interpretational flaws many times outweigh the insights. Lewontin attributes an exaggerated ideological influence on the scientific community (possibly concluding from his own strong political nature). This review reads as a critique of the representative points:
Lewontin writes, "What Darwin did was take early 19th century political economy and expand it to include all of natural economy" (p.10). However, while it is well known that Darwin was impressed by Malthus' reasoning on geometrical increase of populations, this does not imply he adopted or expanded on the social, ethical or executive conclusions of some form of capitalist economy. As Darwin wrote somewhere, "It is not the strongest nor even the most intelligent species that will survive, but those most responsive to change." Perhaps Lewontin feels some resentment as he writes in the same paragraph: "Darwin... earned his living from investment in shares he followed daily...".
When portraying the biological world view, Lewontin writes "Genes make individuals and individuals make society, and so genes make society. If one society is different from another, that is because the genes..."(p.14)
This is evidently a caricature of the 'Dawkins' point of view. There clearly different forms of governance and economic systems that humans can create, which still conform to their basic natures, even if this nature is genetically influenced and shared.
Lewontin writes "There is at present no convincing measure of the roles of genes in influencing human behavioral variation."(p.33, where he also discusses IQ and twin studies) and "we know nothing about the heritability of human temperamental and intellectual traits."(p.96). However, that seems to be an ill-informed reading of the evidence, even for the time the book was written, early 1990's.
Lewontin writes, "Sociobiology is the latest and most mystified attempt to convince people that human life is pretty much what it has to be and perhaps even ought to be."(p.89) It seems he has fallen here onto the 'naturalistic fallacy' and I don't think even E.O Wilson alluded to that in his writings.
Lewontin continues, "Sociobiological theory claims that all human beings share genes for aggression, for xenophobia, for male dominance, and so on. But if we all share these genes, if evolution has made us all alike in this human nature, then in principle there would be no way to investigate the heritability of those traits... (but) if there is variation then on what basis... is (this) universal human nature." But has Lewontin not contemplated the logical possibility that we share genes that differentially affect measures of tendencies for these traits, with small variation relative to their mean?
The next point concerns one hot button: "It must be remembered that the nonreproductive homosexuals must help their brothers and sisters so well that those relatives have twice as many offspring as usual..."(p.103)
But what about the other, more reasonable possibility, that a homosexuality related gene (if indeed exists) may confer some (health) benefit on its bearers in the feminine line, and thus statistically avoid extinction (like the sickle-cell advantage to malaria) ? It doesn't have to do with kin selection.
And finally, "The most famous theory of evolution before Darwin was... Lamarck... Darwin completely rejected this world-view and replaced it with one in which organisms and environment were completely separated"(p.108) However, it is now known that Darwin himself subscribed to some Lamarckian processes.

A. F. Naromu 2004-11-01

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

Despite some shortcomings, I was thoroughly impressed by this book that I read it two times in a row. I also chose to base a school project on it. I am quite convinced that "Biology as Ideology" might actually have been one of the most important books of the previous century (Yes, I mentioned this in my project). And although it is atypical of me to comment on other people's reviews, some things just warrant correction. Contrary to what one reviewer said, Lewontin never once suggests that "there is no such thing as race" in this book. And although Lewontin has a thing or to two to say about reductionism - - he does not completely resent it. He talks about an ideal view "that sees the entire world neither as an indissoluble whole, or as isolated bits and pieces". It's easy to miss this message because Lewontin does tend to have a propensity for veering off-topic once in a while. I also don't think that it's far-fetched at all to call Lewontin a Marxist. Although he only mentions Karl Marx once in this book, most of his views on society strongly cohere with Marx's.

In our world today, any product of science is claimed and treated as a universal truth. Lewontin encourages the reader not to be mystified by science (don't just leave it to the experts!) And science has never been as "objective" and "nonpolitical" as it claims because it's a product of society. Scientists will view nature through lens molded by social experience.

I thought it daring (and brave) that Lewontin - a luminary in the study of genetics today - should question Darwin's "natural selection", and see more sense in Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics. This book is good because it makes you observe the other side of things. It makes you think.

Perhaps the most excellent point made by Lewontin in his book is that of biological determinism as a way of social legitimization. Biological determinism has been used to explain and justify the inequalities within and between societies and to claim that those inequalities can never be changed. We are being taught that there is genetic differentiation between racial groups in characteristics such as behavior, temperament, and intelligence. We are also being taught that people's genes are connected to things like unemployment, eroticism, dominance, poverty, and homelessness. It really getting ridiculous! There is too much power being blunderingly put on the DNA molecule.

I however, disagree with Lewontin that the genome project was a waste of time and billions. It has helped not only consolidate the theory of evolution...but it has also helped in areas like systematics, phylogeny, and taxonomy. Another shortcoming is that Lewontin's book is more than a decade old - many discoveries and advancements have occurred since then in molecular genetics.

2003-06-13

9 of 62 people found the following review helpful:

This book claims that there is no such thing as race. While this would be nice, unfortunatly that is just not the case. Scientists can take a drop of blood and determine if its owner is Asian, African-American, European, Jewish, etc. If there is no such thing as race, then how is this possible?
This book was used in a biased anthropology class that I took for my BA. I only bought it because I was forced to.