We may be less likely to attribute social factors as a cause and we may be more likely to accept a technological or pharmaceutical solution as a remedy. The disorder may also acquire a credibility and a sense of inevitability that it previously lacked. The reasoning that leads to these conclusions has a certain logic, after all we investigate causes primarily so that we can find remedies, but nevertheless we need to be careful that our thinking is well-founded. In the six short chapters contained in Biology as Ideology, Richard Lewontin, a renowned geneticist, sets about clarifying the relationship between genes, society and genetics.
|Published (Last):||21 January 2012|
|PDF File Size:||17.73 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.65 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In he graduated from Harvard College BS , biology. Career[ edit ] Work in population genetics[ edit ] Lewontin has worked in both theoretical and experimental population genetics. A hallmark of his work has been an interest in new technology.
He was the first person to do a computer simulation of the behavior of a single gene locus previous simulation work having been of models with multiple loci. Their paper gave a theoretical derivation of the equilibria expected, and also investigated the dynamics of the model by computer iteration. Harry Harris reported similar results for humans at about the same time. Although they did not commit themselves to advocating neutrality, this was the first clear statement of the neutral theory for levels of variability within species.
The possible theoretical explanations of this rampant polymorphism became the focus of most population genetics work thereafter. Martin Kreitman was later to do a pioneering survey of population-level variability in DNA sequences while a Ph. Lewontin was an early proponent of a hierarchy of levels of selection in his article, "The Units of Selection".
He has been a major influence on philosophers of biology, notably William C. Lewontin briefly argued for the historical nature of biological causality in "Is Nature Probable or Capricious? Niches are not pre-formed, empty receptacles into which organisms are inserted, but are defined and created by organisms.
The organism-environment relationship is reciprocal and dialectical. In the adaptationist view of evolution, the organism is a function of both the organism and environment, while the environment is only a function of itself.
The environment is seen as autonomous and unshaped by the organism. Lewontin instead believed in a constructivist view, in which the organism is a function of the organism and environment, with the environment being a function of the organism and environment as well.
This means that the organism shapes the environment as the environment shapes the organism. The organism shapes the environment for future generations.
In his article "Adaptation" in the Italian Enciclopedia Einaudi , and in a modified version for Scientific American , he emphasized the need to give an engineering characterization of adaptation separate from measurement of number of offspring, rather than simply assuming organs or organisms are at adaptive optima.
Lewontin accused neo-Darwinists of telling Just-So Stories when they try to show how natural selection explains such novelties as long-necked giraffes. Specifically, he has criticised proponents of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology such as Edward O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins , who attempt to explain animal behaviour and social structures in terms of evolutionary advantage or strategy.
He and others criticize this approach when applied to humans, as he sees it as genetic determinism. In his writing, Lewontin suggests a more nuanced view of evolution is needed, which requires a more careful understanding of the context of the whole organism as well as the environment. He has lectured widely to promote his views on evolutionary biology and science. Kamin and numerous articles, Lewontin has questioned much of the claimed heritability of human behavioral traits, such as intelligence as measured by IQ tests.
Robert Trivers described Lewontin as " Agribusiness[ edit ] Lewontin has written on the economics of agribusiness. He has contended that hybrid corn was developed and propagated not because of its superior quality, but because it allowed agribusiness corporations to force farmers to buy new seed each year rather than plant seed produced by their previous crop of corn Lewontin This favored the profits of agribusiness over the employment of farm workers Lewontin Lewontin, R.
Agricultural research and the penetration of capital. Science for the People 14 1 : 12— The maturing of capitalist agriculture: farmer as proletarian. Pgs 93— in F. Magdoff, J. Foster, and F. Buttel, Eds. Monthly Review Press, NY. He has worked with and had great influence on many philosophers of biology, including William C. He is an atheist.
Follow the Author
Malat Sociobiology rarely has a problem with declaring just about everything has a genetic foundation. He has been a major influence on philosophers of biology, notably William C. Hubby in the journal Genetics  Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution. They have been replaced blology an entirely new level of causation, that of social interaction with its own laws and its own nature that can be understood and explored only through that unique form of experience, social action. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA The book is particularly illuminating on the threefold cord of genes, environment and developmental noise and why it is hard conceptually, not just practically, to disentangle their causal roles.
Jun 17, Trevor rated it really liked it This is the forth book based on the Massey Lectures that Ive read. There has only been one that I didnt really enjoy. All of the others have been utterly fascinating. This is particularly interesting not least because for a couple of years now Ive been meaning to finish reading Dawkins The Extended Phenotype and have struggled because I fundamentally disagree with its premise.
Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA