Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale [Hardcover]

Judith Hooper (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 15, 2002

Mutant moths and feuding scientists—the real story behind the most famous experiment in twentieth-century evolutionary biology. H. B. D. Kettlewell was a British doctor who caught butterflies and moths as an all-consuming hobby. He went into the English woods with a mission—to catch "evolution in action" among the now-famous peppered moths. His work became "Darwin's missing evidence," a fixture in biology textbooks for half a century. Only recently has new research brought a different story to light. Compellingly told, Of Moths and Men reveals Kettlewell as a deluded scientist who distorted facts and suppressed evidence he didn't like. Tyrannized by his mentor, the powerful E. B. Ford—an imperious misogynist and eccentric Oxford don who was a Darwinian zealot determined to crush all enemies in his path—Kettlewell ended his life a suicide. A story of hubris and heartbreak, Of Moths and Men reveals as much about the internecine battles of science as it does about the mysteries of evolution. 16 pages of b/w photographs.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Journalist Hooper offers an engaging account of H.B.D. Kettlewell's famous field experiments on the peppered moth, which were widely known as "Darwin's missing evidence," proof of natural selection in action until 1998, that is, when biologist Michael Majerus showed Kettlewell's findings to be falsified and wrong. Hooper peers into the lives of Kettlewell and his mentor and eventual adversary, the imperious and brilliant E.B. Ford, revealing the human factors that don't get written into the research papers "recriminations, intrigue, jealousy, back-stabbing and shattered dreams." Ford, a Darwinian zealot hell-bent on proving natural selection, serves as a foil for the broader questions raised here about dogmatism in science. Natural selection had the dubious distinction of being as widely accepted as it was short on evidence, and the moth experiments were greeted as a pivotal victory; indeed, despite evidence to the contrary, many scientists today still embrace Kettlewell's findings, in part because denying them opens the door to "the bogeyman of creationism." As Hooper writes, the peppered moths provided "a damned good story, a narrative so satisfying, so seductive, that no one can bear to let it go. But a story alone is no substitute for truth." Hooper's lively history also traces the extinction of old-school natural history, embodied by Kettlewell, who was very much left behind with the synthesis of Darwinism and Mendelian genetics, and who died a suicide.
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Recalling challenges to Mendel's statistical data or the veracity of the Piltdown man, this book places another scientific icon on the slippery slope of suspicion. The peppered moth said to have adapted its coloring to fit the environment, thus insuring its survival has been used to validate Darwin's theory of natural selection for almost 50 years. Now, this classic textbook case is being contested. In this absorbing historical account, reporter Hooper (The Three-Pound Universe) tracks initial efforts to meld Darwinism and evolutionary theory. Among the many contributors to this quest were Darwinian fanatic E.B. Ford and his prot‚g‚, outstanding lepidopterist H.B.D. Kettlewell, who performed the legendary experiment with light and dark moths that supposedly caught natural selection in the act. In fact, there have been doubts about the peppered moth experiments for the past 20 years or more, and Hooper shows how the scientists inadvertently sought to confirm their belief in natural selection rather than actually testing the hypothesis, changing methods when results did not agree with the selection hypothesis. As Hooper ably demonstrates, our understanding is molded by subjective as well as objective factors; self-interest, personality, contrasting worldviews, and human foibles influence the construction of scientific tests and the interpretation of evidence. An engaging detective story that elegantly brings the characters to life; suitable for public and academic libraries. Rita Hoots, Woodland Coll., CA
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 320 pages
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1st American ed edition (August 15, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393051218
• ISBN-13: 978-0393051216
• Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 6.6 x 1.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.5 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (18 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,343,499 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars John Keel, meet Bernard Kettlewell, May 12, 2003

By A Customer

This review is from: Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale (Hardcover)

Forget evolution. Just for a second, OK?

This is as engaging a book as you will ever come across. Judith Hooper is a terrific writer who has something to say to anyone remomtely interested or associated not only in science, but in pride and belief and truth and faith.

There is a review below (from a reader in Paris, France!) that has it all bang-on. You're left with many questions after reading this book. Is an idea/theory only as good as the people behind it and the examples they proffer? Are all scientists misogynists or liars or manic-depressives?

Hooper humanizes this sordid tale, and even with the tragic bits we can celebrate the triumph of scientific review. Debunking and revisionism are loaded terms, but as long as they're driven by a pursuit for the truth we should all be on the same team.

Let's remember evolution now, OK?

Even if moths did have a propensity to rest on tree trunks where enterprising birds could pick them off, what does that have to do with the grand unifying theory of evolution? Yes, certain phenotypes have better chances of getting you killed than other phenotypes, but does that explain speciation? The peppered moths have nothing to do with speciation.

And Of Moths and Men have nothing to do, essentially, with evolution. It has every thing to do with the natural tendency of human beings to believe what they want to believe, and this desire will drive us to do just about anything, including play with moths.

12 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An excellent if inadvertent history of evolutionary theory, June 21, 2004

By A Customer

This review is from: Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth (Paperback)

I've been reading Nature for over 30 years, primarily for articles of medical or chemical interest. Each week the News and Views section attempts to explain papers appearing in the more technical sections of the journal to the general scientific public. Usually these artricles discuss the findings of a given paper, its implications for past work and suggestions for future work. From time to time, News and Views items about evolution (and natural selection) would appear. They were quite different. The whole area was extremely contentious, and the articles were written in a semi-theological fashion with various princes of the church holding forth on the correct interpretation of Darwinian doctrine.

No one with a biochemical background can doubt the unity of life, and its likely common descent, as we are all built of basically the same DNA, RNA, amino acids, sugars and metabolites. So I passed the articles by without getting too involved. On retirement, I did buy Gould's book on the structure of evolutionary theory -- it certainly needed a vigorous editor, but reading the book cold is like coming into the middle of a debate. I gave up after 80 or so florid pages.

The only reason I bought the present book, is that we had moved to the Amherst area, and the book was in the local authors section. Scientific training tends to be very ahistorical, and I knew very little about the controversies which have embroiled evolutionary theory since (except for great debate between Bishop Wilberforce and TH Huxley described in the book). When Steve Jones' book came out updating "The Origin of Species" chapter for chaper (Darwin's Ghost), I read both (chapter for chapter). Although Jones is very clever and much easier to read, Darwin wins each round hands down. He wrote for the educated layman (as almost nothing was known about chemistry or genetics at the time), and the power of his thought processes is stunning even today, and should be accessible to anyone with a high school education. It's definitely worth a read, although the prose style of 150 years ago takes some getting used to.

What Hooper's book does, is describe the subsequent history and the controversies which have embroiled the field (and continue to do so). I had no idea, that evolution was accepted but natural selection pretty much rejected in 1909, 50 years after the publication of the Origin of Species. At this point, there were naturalists who looked at the birds and bees (much like Darwin) and the geneticists (who bred fruitflies in milk bottles). Neither side talked to each other. This and the subsequent union of genetics and evolution in the 30's and 40's is very well described.

Darwin thought that no one would ever 'see' natural selection occurring in their lifetime as the process was far too slow. The appearance of darkly colored moths in the mid 1800s in industrial England appeared to be an example of it occurring (particularly after their numbers gradually increased over 100 years). The book describes the first flawed attempts to 'prove' that natural selection was occurring and that it was occuring by a particular mechanism (selective predation by birds).

The work was done in the 50's and was a product of its time. It was unfortunately all too typical of of the way medical research (not just evolutionary research) was done back then. At about that time 4 pillars of American & English Neurology wrote papers promoting the use of anticoagulants (blood thinners) in the treatment of warning attacks of strokes (transient ischemic attacks). None would be publishable today -- they lacked proper controls, how patients were selected, how long they were followed etc. etc. Lots of patients were treated, lots of complications ensued (of which I saw plenty as a practicing physician), until studies were done showing which patients (those with atrial fibrillation) would benefit, and which would not (just about everyone else).

Closer to the present, the first decent paper (prospective, randomized with controls) on the use of Estrogen in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease appeared in 2003 (no benefit was found). There had only been 3 proper papers prior to that all with too few patients to be significant. Noises had been made about estrogen 'protecting from' and even treating Alzheimer's disease for most of the 25+ years prior to that. Meanwhile patients, families and physicians were in the dark about what to do for a common and debilitating disease. All these studies could have been done in the 70s but weren't. So medicine's hands are no cleaner than the work described in this book (well Neurology's hands at least).

The book is extremely well written, and contains great turns of phrase, such as describing the hideous towers of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst as a 'cut rate Brasilia'. It inadvertently limns a rather depressing picture of academic life (both in the USA and at Oxford) -- anyone contemplating such a career should read it.

My only criticism of the book is that not much attention is given to subsequent experiments which demonstrate natural selection fairly well. Endler's work with guppies in Trinidad is discussed (but in a footnote in the back of the book) and the work of the Grants with Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos is not mentioned at all. Both (rigorously and convincingly < if they aren't out and out lying > ) demonstrate natural selection in action. To be fair, Hooper is telling one story (the peppered Moth) not all stories, and telling that one story very well.

Anyone reading this book should also read "The Beak of the Finch" -- also extremely well written. As for me, I'm going to hold my nose at Gould's undisciplined and rather Rabelaisian prose and tackle his book again.

12 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Well-written narrative on faulty science, September 5, 2004

By 

Erik Gfesser (Lombard, IL United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth (Paperback)

Geoffrey Norman, whose book review in the Wall Street Journal entitled "A Flight from the Truth" enticed me to purchase this text, wrote that "for some, the fall of the peppered moth was better than Christmas morning. Creationists have had a field day with the news, especially on the Web, where a lot [of] bare-knuckles brawling occurs these days. Anyone who thought that the truth of Darwin's theory was settled in Dayton, Tenn., by Clarence Darrow--or in Beacon Wood by Bernard Kettlewell--is sure to be disabused by Ms. Hooper's fascinating book. But of course the theory of evolution will survive the collapse of Kettlewell--though some biologists cling to him with the avidity of the true believer[.] "Of Moths and Men" is a wonderful reminder that science is done by human beings, who are as flawed as the ideas they sometimes possess." Well said. Note that although this work is not a science book, per se, as other reviewers have correctly noted, the narrative includes extensive details on moths that some readers may find annoying. But if these same readers enjoy the good human character development that is interspersed throughout these details, they can definitely handle this annoyance. And because, in my opinion, Part III of this book (comprising two chapters of 12), is written so well, it is worth the time of the average reader to get through the first 10 chapters of the narrative in order to understand the implications of the faulty science of the peppered moth. Although for some reason Hooper has chosen within her discussion to ignore the modern intelligent design movement, she does note that she is "not a creationist, but to be uncritical about science is to make it into a dogma". Very well said.