Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale (Hardcover)

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.

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.