Brooke Kihle
Professor Johns
Seminar in Composition
10/21/14
An organism, an
environment, a relationship
Throughout
the entire book, “Biology as Ideology” Lewontin tries to explain the
misconceptions of modern science. He is continually frustrated in how biologist
especially modern day scientists view the world or more specifically organism.
The main key points Lewontin expresses, are that an organism is formed through
their environment and thus dependent upon each other; as well as the ever
constant change of both-evolution. There are many misconceptions deemed
scientifically factual that Lewontin tries to disprove. These misconceptions play
out in the real world, for example with genetically modified insecticide and
foods. From the New York Times, Andrew Pollack, wrote in his article Genetic Weapon Against Insects Raises Hope
and Fear in Farming about
the benefits and consequences of a new form of pesticide called RNA
interference that zones in on specific harmful pests based off their RNA coding
thus saving beneficiary insects. This supports Lewontin’s theories that nature
and environment are dependently linked because of experiments like modifying an
insects RNA directly modifies the insect’s environment, in this case corn
growth. The common misconceptions of modern scientist- organisms are
independent of their environment, are proven incorrect by Lewontin through
experiments like the one in this article.
First, in order to understand
how and why Lewontin’s theories are scientifically correct you need to
understand why the common misconceptions of scientists are wrong. There are 3
main misconceptions specifically on organisms and their correlation to
environment that Lewontin detects. First that of Jean Baptiste Lamarck who
believed that the environment an organism lived in would inevitable change and
evolve it. This led us to believe that there were parts of our environment that
we do not control, cannot influence. I think global warning in itself shuts
Lamarck up pretty quickly. Next is Charles Darwin completely opposing Lamarck
with the theory that organisms and environment are independent of one another.
His famous theory of the “survival of the fittest” was based off this idea that
an organisms was faced with an environment and had to adapt or would die,
evolution therefore was caused from organisms adaption but not directly their
environment’s factors. However this can be disproven just like Lamarck’s; how
can global warming occur if we have no effect on our environment? Lastly, we
have the theory of Lewontin’s. The idea of Darwin, beautifully put by Lewontin
was “the first step and we have become frozen there” (Lewontin 109). He
believes that there are 3 main bases of organisms and environmental
relationship; summed up they are in fact dependent on each other.
In addition, we need to evaluate
Lewontin’s theory to fully understand what he’s trying to prove in “Ideology as
Biology”. His 4 rules to organism-environment dependency can be stated as the
following: “real relation between organisms and environment is that
environments do not exist in the absence of organisms but are constructed by
them out of bits and pieces of the external world” (Lewontin 113), “we cannot
live without changing the environment” (Lewontin 115), “Organisms determine the statistical nature of
the environment at least as far as it has an influence on themselves” (Lewontin
115), and “organisms actually change the basic physical nature of signals that
come to them from the external world” (Lewontin 116). The first rule can be
explained through Lewontin’s example of a mosquito and human. Humans have an
atmospheric layer covering our bodies that create a warm boundary layer for
mosquitos when they feed on flesh. However, a major factor of evolution is an
increase in size and as mosquitos get bigger they will eventually outgrow this
layer and place them in an entirely “new world”. This shows that an environment
is not made dependently from an organism but is in fact created by them. The
second rule is shown through organism-organism relation. Every organism is
constantly changing the world through consumption and production-our literal
waste is another organism’s energy source. A quote from the book (my personal
favorite) describes this process to be scientifically true, ‘Remember, no
matter how cruel and nasty and evil you may be, every time you take a breath
you make a flower happy’ (Mort Sahl- Lewontin 114). Next, the third rule is
proven by “the way animals and plants store sunlight” for example potatoes and
acorns are both storage capsules for their own reproduction and can also be
used for other organisms like a squirrel storing away acorns in the winter.
Lewontin is basically trying to state that these changes in the environment are
directly transformed by organisms. Lastly and I feel most importantly the
fourth rule can be proven just as simply as Lamarck can be disproven- global
warming.
Finally, the article Genetic
Weapon Against Insects Raise Hope and Fear in Farmers is a great experimental
example to support Lewontin. The use of RNA interference (RNAi) is to kill harmful
pest that kill crops like corn while saving those that are beneficiary to the
plant. The fear is that this new “pesticide” could also harm the beneficiary
insects and inevitably humans. The science behind RNAi is that it creates a
natural double stranded genetic code that acts as if the cell has encountered a
virus- silencing the corresponding sequence and therefore deactivating it. This
plays major roles in pest like the corn rootworm who have become impervious to
pesticides by hopefully, naturally killing these pests and saving major crop
supply. How this comes to play with Lewontin is specifically the corn rootworm
and RNAi. The rootworm not only changes its environment- destroys corn growth
but evolves from the environment to be immune to insecticide. While, the RNAi
changes the environment by eliminating the corn rootworm and there increasing
crop growth. This new environment will thrive in helpful growth stimulation
producing more beneficiary pests and inevitably eliminating harmful insecticide
and with it the insects. This gives insight to all of Lewotin’s theories and
scientifically proves him correct which is what Lewontin has been shouting to
us the entire time.
In conclusion, there have been
many misconceptions from scientist on the idea of relation between organisms
and their environment. With the transformation from Lamarck to Darwin to
Lewontin’s theories we can evolve from these modern biologist misconceptions
and deem Lewontin scientifically correct. Based off his 4 main rules of
dependent relation of an organisms and an environment and the experiment proof
from research found in Pollack’s article, Lewontin’s thesis can be stated for
once and all as fact.
Works Cited:
Lewontin, Richard C. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. NY: Harper Perennial, 1992. Print.
Pollack, Andrew. "Genetic Weapon Against Insects Raise Hope and Fear in Farmers". New York Times, NY. January 27, 2014.
In your introduction your topic seems fine, although your actual argument is a little vaguely expressed. Also, your proofreading is horrific - some sentences are hard to understand there are so many mistakes.
ReplyDeleteYour 2nd paragraph is an awful lot better. Your argument could still be clarified a little, but your tight focus on what is most signficant in Lewontin is genuinely good. With a slightly clearer thesis, you could have just touched this up and cut the 1st paragraph entirely.
The third paragraph is overdone. I don't doubt that some of this material was necessary - and you certainly have a great grasp on a certain thread within Lewontin's thought. The problem is that you only hastily summarize your article, and don't say that much about how you interpret it through Lewontin. All of your previous material about how organisms shape their own environments seems almost pointless here. I mean, I understand what you're getting at, but the balance is off - you have good and details background information in service of a hasty and abbreviated argument, when the real argument (in this case, about the article) needed to be foregrounded to succeed.