Saturday, October 18, 2014

Questions and Comments on Lewontin and Darwin, Week 2

Post your questions/thoughts as comments to this post.  Again:  a paragraph is fine, or a couple if you feel so moved.  You are posting on a question, problem or topic of your choice.  Citing a particular passage is recommended but not required.

17 comments:

  1. Lewontin was a pretty good read, and helped me evaluate my perspective a little more, regarding the general topic of science and how it shapes us. One of the passages of particular interest was the one about altruism, around page 99. I actually somewhat disagreed with his ideas about it, though in retrospect, they weren't completely contradictory. He basically says that altruism is difficult to explain via natural selection, and I kinda disagree. The gist of it is that humans are social creatures, and empathy (which is how we can be social) drives us to be altruistic. So, human altruism isn't something that's always done for the sake of being totally and completely efficient at surviving. Altruism is something meant for one's kin, but can "leak" out to others. The issue with Lewontin's example about the drowning man is that he's kind of assumes that all people would go and save him, and that is a defect with altruism being some evolved/genetic trait. Some would, some wouldn't. Just because we see it as "morally right" doesn't mean that the saving cannot be a "mistaken" application of altruism. While he poses altruism as pretty much unexplainable, I think it's something easily explained.

    Of course, that doesn't really change his later point of having to endlessly come up with stories to defend an idea, and I see no issue with that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One passage in this week's reading of Lewontin that grabbed my attention was the observation of the structure of the ant world. Ants are commonly compared to humans, with words such as "slaves" being used to describe aspects of the ant structure, as if it relates directly to human structure. Lewontin argues that the relationship is analogous instead of homologous, meaning that "they look superficially alike and they seem to serve the same function, but they have no origin in common at the genetic or morphological level" (Lewontin, 95). That means that human slavery and ant slavery can look similar, but came about in different ways, so classifying what ants have as slavery may be incorrect.

    Does that mean we have to change the way we look at animal behaviors? Do we need to come up with a whole new set of terms to describe behaviors that look similar but are inherently different? This distinction seems to be important to Lewontin, but could cause problems. If every topic needed its own terms completely separate from human characteristics, people would find it difficult to understand them. Also, this would be an example of breaking down processes into smaller parts to study them, which is something Lewontin argues against. Since a new set of descriptions of ant behavior would contradict his earlier claims, what might Lewontin suggest doing to help us distinguish between things that are analogous and homologous?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lewontin, in his final chapter, makes a distinction between humans and other organisms. He asserts that all organisms produce their environment, and are in turn influenced by their creation, as well as by the changes thereof. The distinction is that humans have the capacity to plan these changes, and steer the environment in a beneficial way. Lewontin asserts that this fact is concealed by the doctrines of biological determinism, which make human society and the surrounding environment seem static.
    This ties in to the principle of human nature. Given the assumption that society is simply the amalgamation of individuals, and individuals of their genes, a universal human nature would imply that society is static, universal, and therefore inevitable. Lewontin destroys this notion by identifying a logical contradiction within the “three steps” upon which the “sociobiological theory of human nature is built.” (89) Sociobiology argues that there is a universal human nature as well as variations among individuals, both genetic and behavioral. The later contradicts the former, and the whole notion that society is composed of the genes of individuals collapses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Lewontin is saying that Altruism is a defect, more specifically sometimes a good defect, then couldn't Lewontin apply these principles to the Genome Project? Yes, he shoots holes in the drowning man parable, but that theory works actually because the human race isn't following each other around in swimmer, non-swimmer pairs waiting for drownings to happen. The principal is upheld. Yes, I agree that there is some dysfunction with the ideas of the Genome Project and it may not do all what its inflated promises say, but it is still useful to understand mutations and causes of protein misconstruction leading to disease. If the researchers have a vested interest in the consumption of their biochemical products in the sequencing of DNA, or in general, an interest in biotechnological business, wouldn't they be more motivated for the Genome Project to succeed? Could there not be a quid pro quo for each scientific (and social) process Lewontin strikes down?

    A hypothetical situation that I hope relates: Say a drug costs money to produce and is sold at a higher price to patients. Sure, the patients have to pay more money, and some may not be able to afford it, but this is altruism in disguise. If the drug maker does not charge money to keep making drugs, they go out of business. if the drugs are no longer made by the company, the patient doesn't get drugs for free, he suffers. By charging for the drug, the company AND the patient benefit, or in the case of the Genome Project, using government funds paid by citizens, the researchers are given prestige and more money thus advancing research and the public knows which gene is mutated in Cystic Fibrosis and can better treat the disease. The drowning man is saved, and the saver has knowledge that SOMEONE (not the original drowning person, as Lewontin suggests) will help or at least know how to help him in the event he has trouble, as well as know that he is righteous in his deed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. An interesting portion of the text is when it discusses the idea of why the homosexual behavior has not been completely eliminated by this point, after billions of years of evolution. It seems like a reasonable argument, which Lewontin originally poses, that since people that are exclusively homosexual do not reproduce, then that trait is not beneficial for survival of the species, and should be eliminated over time. Yet it is still prevalent after over two billion years. The next assertion Lewontin makes is one of the most interesting in the entire book. Lewontin says "Thus, the entire discussion of the evolutionary basis of human sexual preference is a made-up story, from beginning to end. Yet it is a story that appears in textbooks,in courses in high schools and universities, and in popular books and journals... It consists, in large part, of what scientists say about the world whatever the true state of the world might be." (Lewontin 103). Lewontin brought up the entire topic of homosexuality to prove a point. And in my opinion, it is a powerful point, that science is not necessarily the truth of the world, but more-so what people with the title of "scientist" want you to believe is true about the world, in order to further their own research and businesses. Lewontin shows us that there is more to science than meets the eye.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would like to point out, like many of my esteemed colleagues, Lewontin’s argument against the usefulness of the human genome project. Not because of the argument but of the thoroughness of his argument. It is quite possible that Lewontin covers all of the ‘bases’ in his argument. When I say bases I mean counter arguments like the arguments against corporation use. In fact, starting on page 80, Lewontin acts as if he is running out of space so he speed runs and summarizes through a bunch of arguments until the end of the chapter. Overall, I just found it to be quite a style choice that we have also seen from Abbey .

    ReplyDelete
  8. “A Story in Textbooks,” begins by addressing a past common assertion that one’s life is controlled entirely by his or her DNA. It is often said that someone’s behavior, mental health, emotional health, etc. is solely based on the genes within his or her cells. This theory almost entirely excludes the idea of nurture in the upbringing and development of a child. This statement sounds ridiculous to me, being that it has been psychologically and biologically proven time and time again that nurture is just as important as nature in human development. Even physical development, specifically an individual’s eye color, is determined by environment as well and not solely genes. Further, if a child is taught no social skills and doesn’t experience a learning environment from a young age it is only logical that his or her intelligence and ability to problem solve will be much lower.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Having finished Biology as Ideology, I am very satisfied with Lewontin and have enjoyed the subject of his writing. Lewontin takes a fresh perspective while revisiting age-old discussions of science. In particular, I found the second half of the book to be particularly interesting.

    At the beginning of his last chapter, Science as Social Action, Lewontin talks about science as it relates to the greater community and it's impact on society. Claiming "we are, in Richard Dawkins's metaphor, lumbering robots created by our DNA, body and mind" and then later "the individual makes society, for example, and society is nothing but the manifestation of the properties of individual human beings," Lewontin makes a worthwhile connection. The relationship between DNA and individual human beings is essentially a microcosm for the relationship between individuals and society. While DNA is behind our health, behavior, and many other things, the environment can influence us as well. This is similar to the idea that individuals bring substance to society yet individuals are also influenced by society. The environment and genes both play a balancing role in us as individuals and as a society. While I am not sure that this is what Lewontin is trying to say, it led me to think about genes in a new way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I found that after reading "Biology as Ideology", Lewontin's style of writing was very similar to Edward Abbey's. I found that Lewontin and Abbey did not observe science and aspects of nature like a normal person would. Lewontin didn't just look at the human genome as having one specific cause, he looked at it as having multiple causes that we as humans still my not even know. Both these men view parts of the world completely different than any other person would, and this is what really interested me in both these books.
    I also found that Lewontin's use of Charles Darwin and evolution in his passages helped me understand "The Voyage of the Beagle" even more. I enjoyed that all three of these books not only have nature in common but they all in some way relate to each other in their style and writings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Looking at the book as a whole, there is one point that I am in objection to. Lewontin implies that scientists make wild claims, stating their research will greatly benefit mankind. He asserts that society is deceived by these claims and believes everything scientists tell them. However, media plays a large role in the way individuals perceive scientific research. A lot of times, media exaggerates scientific claims in order to generate a better story. In the end, the blame should not be placed fully on the scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was especially fascinated by Lewontin's argument entailing the Human Genome Project while reading this week. I think part of this fascination it in part to do with the fact that we are reading his work over 2 decades after it was written..2 decades worth of scientific advancements, or perhaps in some cases scientific advancements we thought we would have made by now, yet haven't. And, as students we are taught, or at least I know I was taught, that DNA is the holy grail of science, medicine, evolution, etc. Never have I heard someone even try to refute this until now. Granted we are reading this work at a time where DNA has surely proved itself to be useful information, I still can see Lewontin's point. Especially in this particular statement; "Of course, it, can be said, as Gilbert and Watson do in their essays, that an understanding of how the DNA code works is the path by which human health will be reached. If one had to depend on understanding, however, we would all be much sicker than we are." (Lewontin 67). I think this message is not one that you are cautioned about in your standard science course, yet is a message that is important and thought provoking, especially through the lens of our generation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was very intrigued by Lewontin's view of the genome project. I remember watching videos in my freshman biology class about how the project would help find the cure for cancer and all these horrible disorders. I never heard of anyone criticizing the genome project until this reading. Lewontin's argument that something cannot be completely broken down and studied, but also not studied in a holistic aspect was something that took me a while to grasp. I enjoyed reading about viewpoints that were completely foreign to me. An argument that Lewontin made that I found the most interesting was on page 68 when he stated that the final human sequence of DNA would be "a mosaic of some hypothetical average person corresponding to no one." All this time so much hype was being made about sequencing human DNA only for the outcome to be almost useless in comparison to what we were lead to expect.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think I really started to understand Lewotin’s point when he talked about the human genome project’s goal and how it would be applied in a person. Before he was talking about environmental factors and how these are not directly translated into genetics. I have a pretty good understanding of this. Epigenetics are certain tags that are placed on a gene to affect how little or how much a gene is expressed in a person. These tags are influenced by environmental factors. This makes sense to me, but I didn’t really understand what the big deal was. It is also something that could be solved by science, even if it is wasteful. For the scientist in me it seemed so easy to solve in a lab someday in the future. I really enjoyed his talk on ethics though. I feel it was the first time I was able to see past the science and the goal of discovery. When he talks about how these projects would be applied to sick people it feels like the beginning’s of a sci-fi dystopia novel. The solutions to the problems gene therapy would have seem too risky and too manipulative. We forget that the people are patients not lab rats when we talk about the science. I think it was smart of Lewotin to address so many different angles to the Human Genome Project. His different arguments will click with different people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was always under the assumption that human genome project, once completed would lead to discoveries in the scientific field, that would change the way the world of science functions. It lead to major advances in the medical field and cure many diseases. However as is seen it hasn't. As Lewontin says the human genome project was not created with publlic health in mind. But with private profit. It could lead to "genetically altered organisms" which i believe would defy the purpose of the human genome project. The human genome project is supposed to aid people and discover new ways to cure incurable diseases. Instead the focus seems to be placed upon genetic engineering and the creation of new species.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think Lewontin's ideas about the Human Genome Project are extremely valid and undeniably accurate. He seems to hesitate when it comes to such thoughts as how the multi-billion dollar project will be the answer to all biological questions and problems. I agree with Olivia that it seems like science equates what it does with lab rats with what it can do with humans. Although the similarities between treatments are great, it is important to remember that they are still very rudimentary. After reading his opinions on such subjects, I can see where he comes from when he says that our ‘medical treatments’ are nothing more than they were decades ago, although they are certainly more effective. This is because our big-picture ideas have expanded and unintentionally improved our “methods for examining the state of our insides … advances in microplumbing … and … ways of correcting chemical imbalances and of killing bacterial invaders” (67). Lewontin also comments on the fact that we still bombard cancerous tissue cells with “chemical assaults” that are barbaric in the least. It’s hard for me to understand how we know so little about cells and their processes, but we can use the small amount we understand to create such great changes. I feel like the more we know about the ‘big-world’, the less we are able to interpret the reasons and meanings behind what goes on in the micro elements of biology.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.