Customer Reviews

What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

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. He doesn't want any cultural or behavioural relationship between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, a favourite plaint of Lewontin's. Any hint of sociobiology, which he incorrectly defines as the study of human behaviour, must be rejected. This attitude ignores the wealth of research published during the past generation.

Marks' shots against sociobiology would be amusing except that so many will accept them uncritically. Like his mentor, Marks wants humanity to evolve without any evolutionary baggage. Behavioural studies of modern animals are irrelevant according to Marks. Thus is cast aside the whole realm of Darwin's evolution by natural selection. At least as far as it concerns humans. This attitude fits adroitly with Marks' intended reader community. He blames science for many social attitudes, delving deeply into the history of science to build his case. His brief runs from Plato onward, ending with the efforts to map the human genome. Science has long suffered from its cultural roots. The case is flawed by Marks failure to recognize that all through history, science has sought to reveal natures' secrets. It's a process of fits and starts, each gain a limited success. That inability to "get it all right the first time" is inherent in the process. It accomplishes little to portray the process as invalid. If some people have not performed to his expectations doesn't mean science should give up trying.

The area that Marks clearly wants abandoned is understanding of what drives human beings. That some scientists want to look more deeply into the human genome he perceives as a wasted effort. Along with Lewontin, Marks rails against "genes for" this or that aspect of life - particularly human life. Are we to assume then that we should stop looking? Because faulty genes have been shown to invoke certain disorders but haven't been found for others, is the list now complete? He inveighs against looking for genes for criminal behaviour. We don't know enough about how DNA works to decide one way or another. Do we give up analysing how genes perform? And what exactly is criminal behaviour? Even Marks uses statistics of prison populations to build his case. But none of the Enron executives are in prison, nor are likely to be. Do we exclude them from genetic analysis to unravel what genes lead us to do?

This book will go far in inflaming the already anti-scientific attitude prevalent in North American schools. Statements such as "science is not generally accurate" and "scientific statements are routinely falsified" [p. 279] aren't likely to entice anyone into the scientific fold. Students will not be encouraged to enter science disciplines when they're told "it is no easier to get the average scientist to accept responsibility than it is to get the average four-year-old to accept responsibility. After all, Marks is a scientist himself, his statements must be valid. We must assume, it is supposed, that he and Lewontin stand alone by having donned the mantle of responsibility. Yet his book is permeated with complaints that statements made by other scientists have been uncritically accepted. Marks owes the scientific community an apology. More importantly, he owes every young person interested in science an apology for describing them as likely to become irresponsible children instead of aspiring grown-ups. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

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.

While I do not usually attack a particular Amazon review, I will point that Mr. Haines would benefit from a second reading of the book. Science is generally inaccurate in behavioral sciences (but also elsewhere): this is a simple truth, not an extreme claim. It is also _not_ an attack on science. As a matter of fact, as Marks points out rightly, science is accurate _OVER TIME_, but may be hopelessly misguided sometimes even in the long term. IF this was not the case, there would be no need for new paradigms; but, these do happen, I am afraid. This book is in no way trying to disparage science. If this was the case, Marks would not continue his work. But let me stress this: Marks simply notes that scientists should not put their noses where there is no place for them, or where scientific truth cannot be derived. I do not quite understand why this is a preposterous claim.

Linneus is demonized?! No, Marks simply notes the amount of folk knowledge inherited in this supposedly natural classifying system--what is found 'out there,' in nature. This is a clear point, not demonization. He is showing the arbitrary nature of classification. EVERY biologist should know this, but doesn't. Nor did I, before I got my MA in Physical Anthropology after studying Biology as an undergrad

Particularly, I would like to reply to this comment: "[i]nability to 'get it all right the first time' is inherent in the process. It accomplishes little to portray the process as invalid." Marks _does not_ expect science to get it right the first time. As a matter of fact, a careful reading of his book will indicate that he does not want genetics to fall into the same trap for the _SECOND_ time. Furthermore, far from arguing for abandonment of genetics as a whole, Marks asks geneticists to stop making grand claims when small results are observed: if that is not reasonable I am not sure what is.

Overall, Marks has presented an immensely readable work. Not everyone is going to like it, especially sociobiologists. There is actually nothing terribly revolutionary here. However, Marks' prose and his dripping sarcasm make this a book to read. I have yet to see how it is post-Modern or deconstructionist, for that matter. Marks is interested in science, but wants to see that it does not make mistakes it has so often made in the past. Is that really so controversial?

If you're interested in what can and cannot be learned from the new advances in genetics technology--particularly the applications of that technology to the social sciences, history, psychology, political theory, and so on--then 98% Chimp won't disappoint. Marks is clearly conversant with the details of this rapidly advancing field as well as with the wildly unscientific claims made by many of its practitioners--to say nothing of those made by the technocratic/futurist know-nothings in the media or politics who make hay with research findings--and his outrage about how all this is being conveyed to/understood by the public is infectious. The topic is such that some of Marks' specific case studies are already outdated (published in 2002, revised in 2003, and at the time I'm writing this review, in 2008, the field has already changed quite a bit), but the underlying fallacies that he identifies are just as present and as pernicious as ever. The book is most valuable in providing sympathetic readers with the detailed tools necessary for arguing against genetic fundamentalists, socio-biologists and other extremists. It may not convince those on the other side, but if it doesn't give them at least some second thoughts then they aren't really paying attention.

That said, Marks doesn't always seal his arguments in an air-tight manner. I'm essentially 100% in agreement with him. But I kept imagining using his book to debate an intelligent, determined science fundamentalist, and I found on virtually every page an overly facile generalization, a straw-man argument, or an attempt to dodge thornier issues, all of which would be jumped on by an attentive opponent. In most cases I could see how to close the loophole myself, but I shouldn't have to work that hard to do what I take to be the author's job.

Lastly, I found Marks' style really distracting. The constant shifts in register are obviously intended to mark moves in and out of his "sarcastic voice," but listening to an author sneer all the time, even when you agree with him, is a bit unsettling. Especially when the author is writing about such an important subject and one where his opponents are likely to already be on the defensive.
And the short paragraphs.
Don't even get me started on the short paragraphs.
Or the loose structure, in which dozens of such short paragraphs could be moved virtually anywhere else in a given chapter without affecting the meaning.
It often feels as if Marks simply grouped his notecards together and hit "print."
I kept wondering how California's editors let this pass unrevised.
It will do little to instill good writing habits in you or your students.
You get the point.

So all-in-all a useful book, if not quite the slam-dunk this topic desperately needs.

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. Likewise, since the chapters are not sequential in any particular learning curve way, you can jump and skip around in a manner usually reserved for not-technical non-scientific works, pick and choose what interests you, i expect that you will finish the book as i did, interested and stimulated in my thinking about these important issues.

So after this, what is the common threads that bring the author to create this book? One, is the demarcation problem in science(the author does not however use this philosophic term), that is the question of what is science versus what is not science and two what separates good science from poor. In the author's own words: "We now recognize the need to define the boundaries of science in order to distinguish the authoritative voice of scientists speaking as scientists from the voice of scientists speaking as citizens."pg 94 He uses the term folk heredity, folk science, folk beliefs consistently to separate the science from the common sense general understanding of people. Using folk heredity as others would the term pseudoscience or unscientific common sense.

Along with the demarcation problem he is primarily concerned with the effects of science, with the humanistic concerns for people and how that is subverted or ignored by people claiming to be doing science. This is the topic of chapter 9 "a human gene museum?" where he tackles several sacred cows in science related to the human genome project and in chapter 10 "identity and descent" he tackles kennewick man and the controversy there. This principle is simply that science has as it's ultimate goal the betterment of human lives, and if the means to get there, the technics of science begin to subvert these humanistic goals then scientists better reexamine what they are doing and/or how they are doing it.

The third theme that binds the essays together is the relationship of the anthropology to the genetics in the science of anthropological genetics. To this end several of the beginning chapters, culminating with chapter 6 "folk heredity"(which i feel is the best chapter in the book) deal with the issue of race and genetics. The take home message is pretty simple, race is a cultural abstraction, a societal construction that has no basis in genetics. The variability of characteristics is larger within then it is between these racial groupings. but it takes several chapters to convince the reader that this long held, cherished view of human diversity is in fact not genetic but cultural, not nature but nuture.

Something else that solidifies and holds together the book is the author's passion for science. He protects it when it is under unjustified attack from outside, or being subverted from the inside and criticizes it when it doesn't live up to the high ideals that it proposes. this coupled with the interesting way he writes is reason enough to get the book and read a few of the chapters. He is consistent, plain speaking, mildly addictive, and with a surprise on every page with who he agrees with and who he doesn't. Well worth the time to get to understand an interesting and passionate man who writes about current scientific events with an eye to principles and humanistic goals that is refreshing and important, and unfortunately uncommon in the field.

A catchy and provocative title is now de-rigueur for popular science books on the subject of genetics. It's somewhat surprising then that the message of WHAT IT MEANS TO BE 98% CHIMPANZEE is that it doesn't really mean that much at all. Marks takes a distinctly middle-of-the-road position on most of the scientific debate that has spun off from the human versus ape discussion. Marks says that "the extent to which our DNA resembles an ape's predicts nothing about our genetic similarity to apes, much less about any moral or political consequences arising from it."

In chapters such as "The Ape in You", "How People Differ from One Another" "The Meaning of Human Variation" and "Human Nature" the author lays out his views on hot-button topics such as the biological reality of "races" and "nature vs nurture". Marks is not a believer in strict genetic determinism and therefore does not take a reductionist view of human nature - i.e genetics as a causal factor for everything. He's somewhat more of a humanist but this nod to a more environmentally deterministic view does not extend to an all embracing view of our fellow primates. The non-human primates - Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Oranutans have an increasing number of human advocates who say that there are moral and ethical consequences that stem from the genetic similarity between apes and humans. Primatologists such as Jane Goodall argue that the higher intelligence and emotional awareness of apes demands a distinction in how we view them, and more importantly, how we treat them. In the chapter "Human Rights for Apes?" Marks discusses the Great Ape Project and the long term objective of getting an U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Apes. Marks will have none of this and sees such positions as pretentiousness on the part of scientists.

The science on animal consciousness is still inconclusive especially as it relates to the Great Apes. It's in the area of self-awareness and higher order thinking ("thinking about thoughts") where much of the debate takes place but this is not Marks' primary interest. Marks' main point is that there is a better approach to understanding these issues, one that is holistic rather than a binary "either/or" argument. Marks introduces us to his speciality in chapter one - "Molecular Anthropology" - and tells us that it combines the reductive power of genetics with the humanistic vision of anthropology. It thus allows practitioners to steer clear of ideologically influenced science.

It's ironic because in arguing about the merits of his field of study, Marks himself comes across as tunnel-visioned and obviously enamored with his own view of things. This is the only problem with this otherwise well written and wide-ranging discussion on some of the current debates in science. Although Marks wouldn't support it because it talks about a sentient Gorilla, for me, Daniel Quinn's book ISHMAEL provides the best overview on this whole debate. Our scientific beliefs give us a view of the world. Ishmael says it's going to be hard for us to give it up because what we're doing is "right" and "giving up would mean that all along [we've] been wrong. It would mean [we've] never known how to rule the world. It would mean relinquishing [our] pretensions to godhood." As if to prove the point, this book can't end without trying to tackle the "big" questions. Marks concludes with a chapter on "Science, Religion, and Worldview".

Enjoy the book for what it is: a good general introduction to genetics, with particular reference to apes and ourselves. Just remember that scientists - even iconoclasts such as Marks who does a great job of cutting through the debate - still are subject to their own biases and particular worldviews. Science itself is still undecided on much of what you read about here.

This book I bought for my husband. He is reading it and has enjoyed all of it so far. Thank you for letting him buy it to read.

For about two decades we have been hearing that chimpanzees and humans own 98% of their genetic identity. And for the past few years biological determinism seems to be making a comeback. If crude efforts like "The Bell Curve" are properly dismissed, we still find out that everything from alcoholism to homosexuality is determined by genes. News reports argue that by looking at chimpanzees we can find the truth about our own agressive natures. At the same time we hear about identical twins separated at birth, who are in the same professions, have wives and dogs with the same names, and even have the same styled moustaches. Surely, this is proof of the power of nature.

Well, actually no, and it is the value of this book that it shows the weaknesses of this vulgar Darwinism. The book is somewhat repetitive, and readers may find its invocations of eugenics and Social Darwinism both old news and somewhat unnuanced. But in clear accessible language Marks shows the weaknesses of the above propositions. For a start, the famous homosexuality study, which had a number of weaknesses Marks points out, stated that only 5% of whether one was a homosexual could be explained by genetics. This makes sense, since homosexuality in human societies varies widely, being endemic in some societies at some stages in life (like Classical Rome and Greece) to be harshly repressed in others. Likewise the 98% figure is based on one of a variety of ways of measuring our genetic identity, and Marks points out that it was manipulated in such a way so that chimpanzees would appear closer to us than to gorillas. Obviously we and chimpanzees are very close genetically, but how can we tell whether a trait in chimpanzees explains an aspect of human society? The possibilities are that a) it does reflect a common inherent trait of both species b) it reflects a common trait that humans evolved out of or c) it reflects a trait that evolved in chimpanzees after they differentiated from our ancestors. We cannot simply tell by just looking, and without a genetic explanation. As for the identical twins, think about it a little more closely. How could the choice of one's profession, the shape of one's moustache, the name we give our dog, or the name of the person who decides to marry us, possibly be genetically determined. It is too good to be true, and it usually is (more likely the reason is sureptitious contact between the "separated" twins.)

Marks goes on to provide many other interesting asides, such as why black athletes are not "genetically" superior to others. He discusses the strange tale of "Kennewick Man" reported in the media as a Caucasian skeleton that American Indians politically correctly wanted to take away from the scientists who wanted to study it and bury it so it would not refute their beliefs that they were in America first. Marks points out a whole list of problems with this account, starting with the important fact that you cannot tell that a skeleton is "Caucasian" from examining it, and then pointing out a number of other non-sequiturs the scientists used to keep the skeleton from its legal owners. Marks also provides good reasons not to panic over cloning, as well as good reasons not to give apes human rights (simple answer; they're not human). He also points out the long history of "projection" in which scientists saw their own societies reflected in their studies of primates. For people who know little about molecular anthropology, Marks provides a helpful introduction.

Review by Peter LaFreniere Department of Psychology, University of Maine, Orono,

Years ago a colleague who knew how fond I was of explaining our primate origins to students asked me, "Did you know we share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees"? "I'm comfortable with that", I replied, "as long as I still only share 50% with my brother", introducing a conundrum for many students that few professors can adequately resolve. Thus it was with great interest that I sought out Jonathan Marks' new book, What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee.

The question Mr. Marks poses in his title provides a wonderful entree into the fascinating and intersecting worlds of human biology and culture. The lessons are at once simple and complex; one can both overstate (and understate) the similarities between ourselves and our nearest genetic relatives. Indeed those qualified to offer a balanced perspective must be equally expert in a variety of relevant disciplines and fair-minded in their synthesis of an ever widening and more technical knowledge base. Marks notes in his preface to the paperback edition that his goal was to "relativize the genetic place of humans and apes: not to deny it or challenge it, but simply to place that scientific work in an appropriate cultural and historical context" (p. xv). Sounds great.

But turn the page and the reader discovers that the sciences and the humanities are "coming apart at the seams" and that "This rift is probably irreparable" (p. 1). Sounds ominous.

A few pages later, we learn that "Humans are marked by a large number of physical, ecological, mental, and social distinctions from other life...what does genetics have to say about all this? Nothing. Sameness/otherness is a philosophical paradox that is resolved by argument, not by data." (p.22)

This last sentence is one of the few in the book that the student who had purchased and read the book before me had both highlighted and starred. Clearly, for this student this represents one of the most important messages of the book. To me the statement seemed intended to support his main goal which has little to do with Chimpanzees but more to do with proclaiming race a socially constructed myth. (Marks: "I use "race" the way I use "angels" or "psychic energy", p.137). Moreover, one learns that families are also social constructions; genetic ties "form a relatively small part of what composes a family" (p. 135). And one more chestnut: calling humans "Mammals" is also a social construction, a political gesture by Linnaeus to induce women into breastfeeding their infants (pp. 49-50). Chimpanzees and mammals aside, much of the book is spent debunking race as having no biological reality, genes as having no influence on brain or behavior, and scientists as having no ability to measure anything, particularly human abilities. On the topic of race Marks states, "Teaching that racial categories lack biological validity can be as much a challenge as teaching that the earth goes around the sun must have been in the seventeenth century." Odd, I thought Copernicus taught us to face facts even if they make us uncomfortable.

Such is the triumph of sophistry over data in what Marks calls "Molecular Anthropology". Of course, once the student buys the notion that important debates are resolved by argument, not data, it is a simple step to dismiss all inconvenient data from one's argument as irrelevant. Methods are even more irrelevant because they just produce irrelevant facts that are probably not true anyway, and most likely the product of a devious mind with a hidden and evil agenda, that is to say a "scientist". This attitude and the hostile tone that Marks adopts in the first chapter are maintained throughout the book as Marks jumps from one sensationalistic headline grabbing topic to another, occasionally showing himself in command of some relevant facts regarding genetics, but more often attacking and trivializing the same group of scientists (geneticists) who have provided him his borrowed expertise. Listen to the tone of his comments regarding those who dare measure human abilities: "Furthermore, this raises a darker question: What are we to make of scientists who assert the existence of real constitutional differences in ability? If we cannot gauge differences in ability in any reliable manner, if ability is not a scientific concept, it is a corruption of science to assert in its name that one group indeed has less ability than another... We now need to define the boundaries of science in order to distinguish the authoritative voice of scientists speaking as scientists from the voice of scientists speaking as citizens. This distinction is vital to keeping science from being tarnished by those few scientists who have chosen to invoke it as a validation of odious social and political doctrines." (pp. 93-94)

Just who are these odious scientists who think that human abilities can actually be measured in any reliable manner?

One (among many) is the soft-spoken, hard-nosed behavioral geneticist, Thomas Bouchard, a leading researcher at the University of Minnesota over the past 35 years. Marks establishes several "facts" about Bouchard: First, that his research is of questionable ethics because it was primarily funded by the conservative Pioneer Fund. Second, that his work compares the oddities of twins separated at birth and later reunited. The student who preceded me in reading Marks' caricature of the methods of behavior genetics writes in the margin: Jim Twins, genes vs. coincidence? (Note: The "Jim twins" are a pair of remarkably similar brothers and the most famous twins in the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart). Marks omits that Bouchard has received over 30 grants that are peer reviewed by the most authoritative body of scientists in their field, funded by the National Science Foundation and many other major funding sources in the U.S., and that have led to hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles detailing extensive data sets quite different than some incredibly naive journalistic account of the "Jim Twins". Rather than inform students of the logic and limits of heritability estimates derived, not from anecdotes, but by comparing a large international database of groups of identical and fraternal twins reared apart and together, he chooses to lead the naive reader to this question: Is the fact that the "Jim twins" married identically named women, and have identically named sons and dogs genetic in origin or just a coincidence? Of course it's a coincidence, and it is as completely irrelevant to behavior genetics as a SNL ("Saturday Night Live": a U.S. television comedy show -- Ed.) episode on the same topic.

Marks continues to display his penchant for one-sided diatribes: "A committed ideologue scientist, with funding from a radical organization (which would achieve greater notoriety for their funding of much of the racist work cited in The Bell Curve), builds a research program on patently idiotic stories of reunited twins, which should be of greater interest to mythologists than geneticists." (p. 150)

In contrast to Marks' socially constructed reality of Tom Bouchard, here is the University of Minnesota's social construction: "For many years Minnesota's Department of Psychology was almost alone in its emphasis on genetic factors in behavior. At a time when most American social scientists were strongly environmentalist, Professor Paterson was emphasizing heritable factors in general intelligence and special mental abilities while William Heron demonstrated that maze-learning abilities in rats could be selectively bred. As early as 1962, Paul Meehl advanced a genetic theory for the etiology of schizophrenia and, in 1966, Irving Gottesman initiated a program of training in behavioral genetics in the Department of Psychology. Noting 'that everything is more interesting if you do it with twins,' David Lykken, established the Minnesota Twin Registry in 1969, closely followed by his collaboration with Thomas Bouchard and Auke Tellegen on the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart ... The tendency to ask critical questions, to challenge unquestioned assumptions, and, perhaps most characteristically, to press for quantification and measurement is now, as always, the hallmark of the Minnesota psychologist" ([...]).

For the uninitiated, let's make the record clear: Minnesota is not some prairie college; rather, their psychology department has been ranked at or near the top in graduate programs in the United States since the 1920's. Either Marks is completely ignorant of the scientific methods of behavioral genetics or he knowingly misrepresents scientists by innuendo and misleading accounts of their character, methods and data. As an activist with a habit of writing sarcastic letters denouncing the fools who disagree with him, he has now graduated to writing sarcastic books. Having read the book, I'm sure I would prefer a one-page letter.

Much of this is simply propaganda. Rather than instruct students about the basics of behavioral genetics, Marks chooses to mislead them. If I had one sentence to explain heritability to students I could do more than Marks does in his entire book. (Here's the sentence: Heritability of a trait is calculated by doubling the difference in the correlations between identical and fraternal twins reared together.) Let the more general lesson of the rising tide of propaganda on American campuses be clear: If one's beliefs are at increasing odds with the consensual facts of modern science, then obfuscation, propaganda, threat and censorship become the principal tools by which one must pursue one's agenda.

Need more evidence? Here is Marks' refutation of Frans de Waal's attempt to get people to consider both Nature and Nurture. Notice the pattern of Marks' criticism: not only are data irrelevant, but so apparently are logic and reason: "The millennial issue of the Scientific American includes an ostensibly balanced and objective article called 'The End of Nature vs. Nurture' by Frans de Waal, a primatologist. While sensibly eschewing 'simple-minded genetic determinism', he also reports that 'the evidence for a connection between genes and behavior is mounting. Studies of twins reared apart have reached the status of common knowledge ...' That is, of course, the problem. They are nothing but common knowledge" (p. 158).

What clever word play! But no American scientist will reconsider his or her model of gene-environment interaction, based on such statements by Mr. Marks.

Here is yet another example of the quality of Mr. Mark's rhetoric, this time commenting on the scientists involved in the Human Genome Diversity Project: "These scientists were trying to approach indigenous peoples whose lands had been stolen, lifeways eradicated, and people exterminated, at the hands of the very civilization the scientists represented. And now they wanted blood. (italics Marks') ... The geneticists apparently expected to look people in the eye and tell them that their DNA was more valuable than their customs, their land, their traditions, and their lives." (pp. 204-205)

I could go on with many similar rhetorical flourishes on each tabloid controversy that we have seen in the past decade, including the Kennewick Man, The Great Ape project promoting ape's rights, genetic basis of human homosexuality, science vs. religion, etc. Regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed with Mr. Marks' conclusions on this list of hot button topics, I found his uncivil tone shrill and ultimately tedious, and would have to rate this as the worst book on science I have ever read in a long history of science reading. Is it a sign of the times? The New Scientist proclaims "it is the book that awkward sods everywhere have been waiting for". Indeed.

It seems that the rift between the humanities and science that Mr. Marks refers to on page 1 of his book is likely to remain as irreparable as he claims, so long as sarcasm and innuendo replace data and dispassionate analysis of our most controversial empirical issues. But what, after all, is so problematic with chasing out these damned scientists, with their ceaseless talk of methods, statistics and data? As long as only one political-ideological view is permitted on campus, we can persuade each new wave of students with arguments that are uncontaminated by the nuisance of data to reason their way to the politically correct conclusions we espouse in the first place. And, in the best tradition of Orwellian double-speak, we could call this new modus operandi in the humanities and social sciences "critical thinking".

Peter LaFreniere is Professor of Psychology at the University of Maine. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota in 1982. He is the author of Emotional Development: A Biosocial Perspective and currently working on a new book entitled Adaptive Origins: An Evolutionary Psychology of Human Development.

If you are looking to get a serious knowledge on the consequences or convergence,in any aspect, of humans and chimps, since we share more than 98% similarity in our DNA, you'll be surprised to find that the title is one thing and another very different is the content of the book. As you read along the text you'll realize that the core of the book is mainly a harsh critic approach to science and scientists, in many ways. Sometimes it sounds like resentments. The author was unable to explain and expose clearly, if he even tried, what the title of the book claims. You won't find any clue or credible fact that links, at least in some features,humans and chimpanzees based on our 98% DNA similarity. The title is a catch; the context has nothing to do with the title.

I thoroughly appreciate a book that can give me an excellent introduction to subject matter that I find fascinating. There's that, but then there's also the well-documented research, the depth of social thought and criticism, the occasionally entertaining style of expression and the ability to have me see things differently on certain subjects like the cultural context science operates within and social assertions more biologists have been making. He does go a bit overboard at times, which clearly shows his own deeply held views, but all in all I found it to be an excellent read. I've been conducting biological and anthropological research within the context of evolution for my own book project and this book provided me with some great insights, as well as other great resources to look up for continued study. I give it five stars largely for its depth of thought. My college mentor in the study of Religion (who studied with Joseph Campbell back in the 60s) always graded us on our depth of thinking when we submitted papers. It was our job to analyze the presumptions, implications and ramifications of arguments being made by different thinkers. Marks does a great job of pointing out those presumptions on the part of anthropologists from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century and of biologists today.

I also think that his call for an anthropology of science (an ethnology of scientists) is brilliant. I was originally studying to be a professor of Philosophy before I turned to the study of Comparative Religion/Mythology and the philosophy and history of science was one of my greatest interests. He provides a fairly detailed historical outline of the scientific thought on evolution, apes, anthropology and genetics. Very eye-opening to see how scientific thinkers came to the conclusions that they did. The cultural context is a powerful influential force laden with presumption. It gives us some background to then look at how far science has come with regard to the influence of the culture they are born into. We are humans and we are going to bring some kind of presumption to the table.

I think it deserves the reviews/synopsis above written by Guido Barbujani of the Massachusetts Medical Society and Ray Olson of the American Library Association.