Customer Reviews

It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is a collection of nine essays from The New York Review of Books, beginning in 1981, mostly on genetics, the genome and the Darwinian pantheon. The essays are presented with new footnotes and cross references followed by an Exchange and/or an Epilogue in which the material is updated and some contrary points of view presented and addressed. The expression is erudite, polished and complex, the tone authoritative and at times slyly satirical and not more than a microbe's breath away from the pompous.

The first essay, "The Inferiority Complex" is a review of Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1981) which deals with the IQ conundrum. Lewontin's main point here, in agreement with Gould, is that "there may be genes for the shape of our heads, [but] there cannot be any for the shape of our ideas" (p. 9). I'm not sure I agree with that rousing call to the uniqueness of human kind, but I am confident that no one has yet refuted such a point of view. Not entirely as a surprise Gould (in a jacket blurb) acknowledges Lewontin as "the smartest man I have ever met."

Gould is not the only one to sing praises to Lewontin's intellect and understanding. Noam Chomsky chimes in with an acknowledgment of "the impressive quality and significance" of Lewontin's essays, while a book I just finished reading, Steve Jones's excellent Darwin's Ghost (1999) is dedicated to Lewontin, who showed him "what evolution can and cannot explain." Perhaps that is Lewontin's main strength, as a anchor on the ship of biological presumption that would sail us to a questionable nirvana of the pre-determined. I can say from my own experience that the very learned professor reminds me of someone I would call "the Edmund Wilson of book critics biological." He is also the very distinguished Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard and the author of several books on genetics and related subjects, most characteristically perhaps, Not in Our Genes (1984) with Steven P. R. Rose and Leon J. Kamin.

Why then am I not entirely thrilled with this beautifully wrought collection of unquestionably significant and stimulating essays? I think it's that I disagree with his point of view and emphasis, and feel that the sequencing of the human genome really is a significant step toward our understanding of who and what we are, and I don't care who, or who did not, get rich in advancing it.. I also think that the practical applications from such information may prove valuable in ways we cannot begin to predict. I am a fool for knowledge if only for knowledge's sake, and I wonder why Lewontin has expended so much energy knocking the project. His real criticism of the effort, despite his use of the derogatory words, "dream" and "illusion" and even "fetish" (p. 135) is presented on page 177: "The promise of great advances in medicine, not to speak of our knowledge of what it is to be human, is yet to be realized from sequencing the human genome."

Who could disagree with that? He also writes on page 151, "Causal stories are lacking...nor is it clear, when actual cases are considered, how therapies will flow from a knowledge of DNA sequences." Again, who could disagree? However this is political-speak. It says nothing that can be seized upon and found derogatory, yet hints at failure and disappointment. Characteristically, Lewontin writes nothing that one can find direct fault with, yet by indirection and association he belittles the effort. I would note that the word "fetish" is not used directly as a coloration of the project, but as an indirect association. People have said that The New York Review of Books is really The New York Review of Each Others Books, and therefore constitutes a close-knit club with a shared political point of view. I will withhold such a judgment since I have only a passing familiarity with that very prestigious publication.

Putting all that aside, I found myself, while reading the third chapter, "Darwin, Mendel, and the Mind," wondering if Lewontin was really conscious of his own thought processes when on page 103 he relates that he "passed among three very different mental states all under the control of the willful I." Ah, if only that "willful I" really was in control and had the power to consciously regulate our mental states. Lewontin seems unaware that it takes many years of devoted practice to still the "monkey mind" and allow one an observation of one's mental processes. He asks rhetorically (still on p. 103), the question he calls the "central problem...for neurobiology," namely, "What is "I"? This is indeed a profound question, asked at least as early as the Upanishads. The modern answer, which Lowentin must know, but does not present, is that the I is an illusion that we cannot help but believe. He goes on to argue with Daniel Dennett against the idea of consciousness as a "metaphorical delusion" (p. 105) without realizing that there is a crucial difference between a "delusion," metaphorical or otherwise, and an illusion. If he looks more closely he might find that consciousness is a trick of the evolutionary process, the main purpose of which is to make us fear death by forcing us to identify intensely with our particular phenotype. Our subjective appreciation of consciousness is a wondrous byproduct of that identification.

Other reviews have touched on the content of the essays in detail. I'll just say the following:

PROS:
- The topics are generally quite interesting, and Lewontin's comments are at times eye-opening, casting serious doubt on established doctrine.
- He writes very well (although he seems to be showing off a bit with vocabulary and the use of French).

CONS:
- He seems quite opinionated. I find his words compelling enough to be more suspicious of what others have said, but at times I don't really feel that I can trust his opinion. There are many examples of this, one being that he is thoroughly convinced of the validity of group selection and can't understand why everyone else doesn't see it. It's all so clear to him...
- At times he seems to delight in being nasty, in choosing hurtful ways to say things, as though that were part of his responsibility in reviewing the work of others.

Occasionally I found the book almost painful to read. For some of the essays, in which he tried to lay waste to the egos of others, he includes their responses as well -- so that he can take one last swipe at them. I actually did skip a few pages in the middle of the book, where he was taking one of these last swipes -- I couldn't stand it. I wanted to shout "Richard, go to your room!"

Still, the book is a thought-provoker, worth reading. Just be forewarned that the author gets a D-minus on "Plays well with others."

First a word on the format of this book: This is a collection of Lewontin's articles written for The New York Review of Books of the last decade. In each case Lewontin has chosen a topic of general interest in the general area of the biological sciences and written a survey of the area intended for the general reader. In typical New York Review fashion, this survey is done in the guise of a review of one or more books recently published in the area.

The columns are much more survey than book review and serve as excellent introductions to the disciplines for the non-specialist reader. Lewontin has included wonderful ascerbic responses to his columns and has updated the area with an epologue to each chapter that surveys recent developments.

The topics will interest the general reader: Recent Darwinian thinking, intelligence testing and brain metrics, the genome project, the biology of sexual equality, biology of the mind and cloning. In every case, Lewontin surveys the intellectual terrain and provides insight. In excellant survey of biological developments for the general reader.

First of all, let me say I feel a special admiration for Richard Lewontin. I believe he is a really smart man and always has an interesting point of view and lots of knowledge to sustain his opinions. This short collection of Reviews he wrote in The New York Review of Books undoubtly endorse my personal opinion on the author. I really recommend this book to anyone with some background on genetics, evolution and biology who wants to enrich his (hers) personal opinion on diverse themes in this subjects. I did not gave this book 5 stars because the reviews contained in it are not new. Although he writes some stuff at the end of his reviews in an attempt to update them, I believe that if he was to write them again, today, he might have changed (maybe, just maybe) a great deal of them. I think Richard Lewontin has more interesting things to say about this themes today than 12 or 20 years ago. He certainly has grown in knowledge and surely has mature his ideas with time and scientific enrichment. Just because he could have gave us more I did not give him 5 stars.

When I first opened this book, I was a little disappointed that it was a collection of book reviews, not a set of essays in their own right. However, Lewontin's depth of coverage makes these essays more centered around the book topics than the books themselves. The fact that some of these reviews are 10 to 20 years old doesn't pose much of problem either, since they are usually still relevant and informative, and he provides updates discussing advances since they were written.

Lewontin has taken several topics of biology that are very much in the public eye lately, and tries to dispell misconceptions, usually to good effect. He clearly has opinions worth airing, and to have so many different topics covered here is a great bonus. It's also nice to see that he's not afraid to print criticisms of his reviews.

I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in controversial topics like cloning or the usefulness of the Human Genome Project, but those with a little scientific background will probably get the most out of this.

A collection of disparate essays is an elusive target for a reviewer. The range of topics here is wide and of varying quality. With essays ranging from IQ testing through the Darwinian revolution to the Human Genome Project and cloning, Lewontin is able to declaim his own expertise in whichever subject he approaches. As with most New York Review of Books authors, he's witty and cleverly subtle when assaulting those authors or ideas he's contesting; passionately assertive in support. When you've finished the review, however, you're often left with little foundation for deciding whether you should buy that particular book for yourself. The usual reaction is wishing to run out and find all the other sources he refers to for confirming information.

The only consistent theme in this compilation is that of the iconoclast. Chipping away at perceived flaws in other people is a Lewontin specialty. He has favoured targets, such as Richard Dawkins and Philip Rushton, are frequently mentioned. A glaring omission, particularly in the updating Epilogue to "Darwin's Revolution", is that of Daniel C. Dennett's DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA. Given Dennett's scathing critique of The Spandrels of San Marco, co-authored by Lewontin and Stephen Gould, the oversight surprises.

The most engaging sections of the book are essays on the Human Genome Project, genetics and cloning. In an effort to undercut scientists like E.O. Wilson or Richard Dawkins, Lewontin attempts to restrict DNA's role to 'the stupid molecule' it was once considered. Using every verbal trick available, he writes a lawyer's brief against the Project and its supporters. Stripping away nearly every function DNA performs and removing it from its environment, he leaves the reader wondering if 'the stupid molecule' is worth the funding. Like many others, Lewontin knows The Human Genome Project isn't a scientific enterprise, but a business one. He's correct in that assessment, but his hidden agenda remains shrouded. Lewontin is terrified that once the genome has been mapped and better understood, this Agassiz Research Professor will discover that human beings aren't the divinely placed species he and many others would like us to be. Because he can think about so many esoteric subjects and salamanders can't [or at least can't express those thoughts], it follows that we're elevated above the other animals instead of simply different. Lewontin is a tenured human and demotion holds no appeal. He's not alone in that, which is why his books sell.

The book needs an index. There are simply too many topics and names running through this collection for either Lewontin nor The New York Review to be excused for this lack. In a time of electronic word processing the omission is unforgivable. A bibliography of recommended readings would also be a benefit. If he took the trouble to update his opinions, he could have helped the reader along with supporting information. Not an approach one would admire in an academic.

Words do matter to Lewontin, and his portrayal of scientists as pontificating from a position of "objective truth" is not an indictment of individual scientists, but rather, a charge against the whole scientific enterprise. And the charge will stick. Each scientist exemplifies this, some to greater, and others to a lesser, degree. Speaking from 35 years experience as a scientist, I can say Lewontin is much more right, than wrong in his assertion. For the most part, the modern scientific enterprise is contaminated by scientists believing they are working at the "wholesale" level when it comes to "objective' truth, while the rest of people unknowingly work "retail," making culturally-biased statements which merely pass as "truth." This problem intensified after the Enlightenment, when natural philosophers (scientists) began to seriously confuse an arrogant superficial materialism/a priori rationalism with true science (information painstakingly and imperfectly derived from studying a world which is diffuclt or impossible to fully comprehend). Lewontin has caught on to this.

First, the only reason this book gets four stars instead of five is because of the 'book review' format, and as book reviews the essays largely fail. As counteractive theoretical essays, however, they are insightful, scathing, and thorough. A friend of mine wanted to reread "The Selfish Gene" because it's a perennial favorite of humanities snobs, now I'll direct her to this text first.

This book deals much more with the philosophical implications authors imply in their texts than the actual Science, but has enough Science to placate those looking for basic information on genetics, etc. Lewontin's humble and witty approach is welcoming, and his thought process is enjoyable. His 'tell it like it is' approach to issues like Social Darwinism and the Human Genome Project are worth reading, especially for people relegated outside the physical and natural sciences who may be unaware of these perspectives. (Especially those who infrequently read Science texts and are consequently doomed to linger in outdated material).

The key strength of this text lies in its challenging other arguments, which is often stronger than texts with centralized theses. Because of Lewontin's critical authority, he is freer from the ideological rampages that blind many of the authors he addresses. My favorite sections of the text were the 'exchanges,' where authors wrote in to the magazine criticizing Lewontin and he responds. For the reviewer here who rebuked Lewontin for his simple approach to complex problems or his philosophical leaning, note that often those letters he responds to are written by the authors of the books he derides. If he has missed 'the point' that they were forwarding, it is addressed there, and if he has not and you see other discrepancies than you've one upped the authors and should look for more sophisticated arguments anyway. After all, if you can't adequately defend your own work against 'paltry' arguments, how strong is it in the first place?

This text's subject matter is broad and marvelously entertaining. Read up!

Lewontin does it again, literally with updates. I've read these reviews in New York Review of Books and find them still relevant and insightful. What he does he not only does well, he does it for us all. It is about biology, but in a larger sense, it really about science and us as a people and civilization. In a sea of sound bites and rampant commercialism, there are some brilliant and knowledgeable people who speak the truth. It is a truth that needs to be said at this critical time. We are quickly losing our grip on reality due to fear of the transnational corporation or just plain apathy and greed. Lewontin sees the big picture and is a highly competent scientist that can see as others do not. He explains it on layman's terms, and therefore, is a true democrat. If he had an index and a general bibliography, it would be nice.

It may be understandable that authors get at times carried away but they may want to remember that irrational generalizations belong in tabloids and should be banned from serious discurse (especially on issues that are of general concern!). How much credibility has an author who rants on like this:

"Scientists, by their practices, seem to place little importance on the actual composition of their communication. For example they never read their papers aloud when they give talks about their work, but speak ex tempore. For other intellectuals the words are the matter but scientists think of themselves as simply objectively reporting the facts of nature. Like the Delphic Oracle they sit perched on their tripods, with upturned eyeballs, and out of their mouths' issue nature's words (p.189)"

I do not know where Lewontin, a scientist himself, has encountered these caricatures. My own experience after working in the sciences for 9 years suggests that scientists, just like the rest of us, are not paradigm cases but individuals. So if Lewontin has specific complaints about specific scientists he should listen to his own advice that "words are the matter" and phrase his criticism appropriately. Otherwise he may want to remember that above and away from the shrine of Delphi is a grove that is difficult to reach, at the end of an ancient cobblestone trail called the Kalki Skala, or "evil stairway." Nearby are two pinnacles from which those convicted of sacrilege against the gods were thrown to their deaths.