Buy Used
$6.07
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Used: Acceptable | Details
Condition: Used: Acceptable
Comment: This book has already been well loved by someone else and that love shows. It MIGHT have highlighting, underlining, be missing a dust jacket, or SLIGHT water damage, but over-all itâ?TMs still a good book at a great price! (if it is supposed to contain a CD or access code, that may be missing)
Add to Cart
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes Hardcover – December 31, 2002


See all 4 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover
"Please retry"
$23.77 $1.99
Unknown Binding
"Please retry"
$18.99

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE
NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 312 pages
  • Publisher: University of California Press (December 31, 2002)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0520226151
  • ISBN-13: 978-0520226159
  • Product Dimensions: 1 x 6.3 x 9.5 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
  • Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (23 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #731,289 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

From The New England Journal of Medicine

Do not be deceived by the title of this book. It takes just five pages to figure out that for Jonathan Marks, being 98 percent chimpanzee means nothing: despite all similarities, chimps are chimps, and humans are humans. No suspense here. So why should one venture through the 307 remaining pages of this book, if the main message is obvious from the start? I can see two good reasons. First of all, because it is fun. I have been a fan of Marks since his 1982 letter to Nature (295:276) entitled "All in the Book." His style is provocative and often amusing, and his arguments are interesting even when there is room for disagreement (as there sometimes is). The second reason is that the subject of this book is extraordinarily important. Many scientists and physicians deal daily, in one way or another, with human variation and its consequences. However, only seldom do we have the time to reflect on the assumptions underlying many concepts, even apparently simple ones, in this area. Marks does a remarkable job of placing those concepts in the historical and cultural contexts in which they were developed, reviews a large body of results, and examines their implications. To what extent are our intellectual and physical skills determined by our genes, and are we sure we have enough good data to answer that question in the first place? Is there any biologic basis for sexual preferences or for the tendency to commit crimes? What is culture, and can we use that word to refer to the transmission of learned behavior in apes? Chapters 3 and 4, in particular, deal with a crucial issue: the existence of human races. As the author aptly remarks, it is probably as difficult to convince people today that races exist in certain species but not in ours as it was to convince people in the 17th century that the earth rotated around the sun and not vice versa. Still, current genetic data are not ambiguous. Everybody can tell a Nigerian from a Dane, but human diversity is distributed continuously, and the identification of discrete clusters of human genotypes (which one could then legitimately call races) has so far proved to be impossible. It is important to stress this notion, because many, including many scientists, still think that although racial distinctions may not be obvious, some sort of racial classification is useful for practical purposes, such as diagnosis or, in the future, the tailoring of race-specific drugs. Marks's book and two later studies (Wilson JF, et al. "Population Genetic Structure of Variable Drug Response." Nature Genetics 2001;29:265-9; Romualdi C, et al. "Patterns of Human Diversity, within and among Continents, Inferred from Biallelic DNA Polymorphisms." Genome Research 2002;12:602-12) show clearly that even for those practical purposes, what matters is the individual genotype and not the largely arbitrary, and hence potentially misleading, racial labels attached to people. The aspect of this book that I fail to understand is its frontal attack on science as a whole, as well as on specific disciplines -- genetics enjoying particularly harsh treatment in chapters 6 and 11. Does the author really believe that many scientists would subscribe to statements such as the following: "Science has explained many things about the universe. Your life has no meaning"? Is he really convinced that studying the diversity of the human genome is useless because human history "is difficult to extract from genetic differences" anyway, and that the standpoint of science is held by scientists to be superior to all rivals? Personally, I am among those who consider the scientist's viewpoint superior for addressing scientific questions but neither better nor worse than others for addressing questions in the realms of, say, music, ethics, or football (in both the U.S. and the European senses). I wonder why Marks has felt the need to create (and then, predictably, to triumph over) such a grotesque fictitious character as the Evil Geneticist. We know that science has had some shameful moments. Eugenics, for instance, is part of the history of genetics (as well as of the history of anthropology), and it is good to be reminded of its theoretical inconsistencies and horrendous consequences. But it is possible to say that humans do not come in neat racial clusters only because geneticists cared to measure the differences among continental groups and showed that they account for but a small fraction of our global genomic diversity. Sometimes Marks seems to miss the difference between reflecting critically on science and rejecting it en bloc because its "numbers" only confirm what he already knew anyway. He is right in remarking that numerical analyses of data require assumptions and therefore cannot be considered to be objective. He is wrong when he pushes that argument so far as to suggest that quantitative science is just an exercise in arbitrariness. It is not, of course; experiments can be repeated, and wrong conclusions may eventually be modified. Shortly after this book hit the stores, Enard et al. ("Intra- and Interspecific Variation in Primate Gene Expression Patterns." Science 2002;296:340-3) demonstrated that differences in gene expression between humans and chimps are much higher in the brain than in the liver. We have largely the same genes as chimpanzees, and these genes do the same things in much of our bodies, but in the brain, the patterns of gene expression diverge dramatically. That and future similar studies can help us understand our evolutionary relationships a little bit better, although, ultimately, what it means to be human is a fantastically complex question and one that science can only contribute to addressing. Guido Barbujani
Copyright © 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. The New England Journal of Medicine is a registered trademark of the MMS.

From Booklist

Humans share about 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, which would be impressive, biological anthropologist Marks says, if we could figure out what it means. We also share about half our genes with fish and about a third with daffodils, but almost no one argues that anything can be learned from fish and flowers about human behavior or that fish and flowers should have human rights. Both are advocated for chimps and the other great apes, from what, Marks demonstrates, are pretty spongy grounds, since we know hardly anything about how genes form bodies. We are also told that genes for homosexuality have been found, but, as Marks shows, the studies said to have found them aren't genetic studies, can't be replicated, are faultily grounded, and characteristically approach homosexuality as if it were a disease. Furthermore, scientists who should know better waste their time, our money, and lots of goodwill on research shaped by racialism and other forms of what Marks calls folk heredity, which may be culturally interesting but is scientifically worthless. Don't think, however, that Marks wants science segregated from culture, as his withering refutations of some of the most highly touted research of recent years might imply. He wants science to be humbler and more sociable, more connected to the rest of society. With plenty of entertaining sarcasm as well as scientific argument and moral indignation, Marks blasts the pretensions of grandiose geneticists pretty thoroughly out of the water. This may be the science book to read this year. Ray Olson
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

More About the Author

Jonathan Marks is Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since the beginning of the present millennium, after stretches at Yale and Berkeley. He is the author of "What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee" (2002) and "Why I Am Not a Scientist" (2009), both published by the University of California Press. Paradoxically, however, he is about 98% scientist, and not a chimpanzee.

Customer Reviews

Reading this book will shed some light on the rather new science called molecular genetics.
Joe Zika
This is easily the best part of the book, and the dripping sarcasm and the molten anger with which Marks writes is immensely entertaining.
Alan Wilder
Marks spends much of the remainder of the book discussing racial/cultural undercurrents in science.
Stephen A. Haines

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

35 of 46 people found the following review helpful By Alan Wilder on October 29, 2003
Format: Hardcover
The easiest thing to do about Marks' work is to dismiss it. Maybe we can simply state that herein lies that 'lefty pinko commie propaganda' that tries hopelessly to be 'PC.' And that's all she wrote! But I am afraid it is not so simple...
Jonathan Marks is writing about _my_ field. I have done some similar work. He is fighting against a popular old force, which tries to ignore not only cultural influence, but also ecological and political, and other influences.
Marks is an expert in his field, and this is very evident. It is interesting that one of the reviewers of this book, Mr. Haines, cites research from past ten years as diminishing to this book. I would like to see this research, not published in a newspaper, please. Genetic determinism, for all its promises, has _failed_ to live up to its expectations. It tries to solve _grand_ answers, and this is pretty hard. Marks is right to question evolutionary psychology, as the field has brought almost _nothing_ but the so-called 'just-so' stories. This is not science, this is myth. And Marks exposes it, as he should. I am also at a loss to observe how Marks wants no Darwinist baggage. This is false; he notes in his work that these explanations can contribute--but again, grand theories based on this kind of 'science' avoid about 150 years of anthropology, which has gone through many of the same pitfalls, by the way.
He is right to question the silliness of invoking the 98% chimpanzee argument, as it is a ridiculous one. He is right to note that folk knowledge manages to mingle in with what is supposed to be science. This is easily the best part of the book, and the dripping sarcasm and the molten anger with which Marks writes is immensely entertaining. However, it is also tragic to observe.
Read more ›
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
59 of 85 people found the following review helpful By Stephen A. Haines HALL OF FAME on September 18, 2003
Format: Hardcover
Accepting the fallacy of Marks' title, let us start on a positive note. Marks wants to keep apes and humans separate. Fair enough. I don't want to live on termites on a stick, and it's doubtful chimps want to worry about traffic congestion, tax rates or political corruption. Marks wants scientists to do their job well. Who can argue? Marks has courage - he has the temerity to assault the venerable E. O. Wilson, the articulate Richard Dawkins and the revered Jane Goodall. Marks is against racism. Hardly debatable. Marks seems a pretty upstanding fellow. Why then, is this book such an insult to the intelligence?
Mostly because it is a froth of misleading statements, misdirected wrath, misconceptions and mistaken views of science. Marks goes to unusual lengths in dismissing the research achievements of many scientists in both field and laboratory. He blithely dismisses the disclosure that chimpanzee and human genes are nearly identical as "the most overly exposed factoid in modern science." It's not significant because it confuses precision with accuracy. From there, Marks goes on to castigate a legion of scientists for their failure to "get it right" the first time around. Few escape his lash - even Linneaus, who virtually invented classifying life, is a victim, and perpetrator, of cultural artifacts in naming species. This from a man who finds culture an unbridgeable chasm between humans and animals!
Marks spends much of the remainder of the book discussing racial/cultural undercurrents in science. He finds far too much of it in current anthropology. He's correct in this, but his case is "overblown"- a favourite phrase of his. In a welter of complaints, he finds but two scientists to exonerate of the charge: Richard Leowntin and - himself.
Read more ›
3 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
7 of 10 people found the following review helpful By R. M. Williams on July 21, 2003
Format: Hardcover
First a couple of structural observations before i look at the content.
It has the organization and transitional structure between chapters of independent essays written for other venues and later shaped into a book. I do not know this for a fact, but the absence of a strong theme which ties the chapters together into a coherent structured book is a hint at it's origin. This lack of coherency as a whole is the main reason i rated it a 4 and not a 5.
Second, i bought the book based on reviews and word of mouth recommendations that were wrong about the themes of the book. I thought it was going to be about what makes chimps and humans different. What it is, is an introduction to anthropologic genetics, behavioral genetics, simply the relationship of genetics to human nature. What i thought was the topic of the book is in fact the issue of chapter 11, titled "is blood so really damn thick?". However it is opposed to sociobiology(evolutionary psychology) in a very consistent manner , so don't confuse the two.
In fact, i was mildly disappointed at this organization and what i thought was a misleading advertising, so much so that i put down the book in chapter 4 and it sank to the bottom of the to-be-read pile for several weeks. This was in addition to what seemed like an eternity spent talking about race. Sadly so because the 6th chapter "folk heredity" is very good on explaining several interesting and illuminating genetic principles:taxonomism, racism, hereditarianism, essentialism(i would have started with chapter 6 if i had known). Simply put i gave up too quickly, don't you make the same mistake.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Customer Images

Most Recent Customer Reviews

Search

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?