Product Description

For the last twenty-five years, sociobiologists have come under continuous attack by a group of left-wing academics, who have accused the former of dubious and politically dangerous science. Many have taken the critics' charges at face value. But have the critics been right? And what are their own motivations? This book strives to set the record straight. It shows that the criticism has typically been unfair. Still, it cannot be dismissed as 'purely politically motivated'. It turns out that the critics and the sociobiologists live in different worlds of taken-for-granted scientific and moral convictions. The conflict over sociobiology is best interpreted as a drawn-out battle about the nature of 'good science' and the social responsibility of the scientist, while it touches on such grand themes as the unity of knowledge, the nature of man, and free will and determinism. The author has stepped right into the hornet's nest of claims and counterclaims, moral concerns, metaphysical beliefs, political convictions, strawmen, red herrings, and gossip, gossip, gossip. She listens to the protagonists - but also to their colleagues. She checks with 'arbiters'. She plays the devil's advocate. And everyone is eager to tell her the truth - as they see it. The picture that emerges is a different one from the standard view of the sociobiology debate as a politically motivated nature-nurture conflict. Instead, we are confronted with a world of scientific and moral long-term agendas, for which the sociobiology debate became a useful vehicle. Behind the often nasty attacks, however, were shared Enlightenment concerns for universal truth, morality and justice. The protagonists were all defenders of the truth - it was just that everyone's truth was different. Defenders of the Truth provides a fascinating insight into the world of science. It follows the sociobiology controversy as it erupted at Harvard in 1975 until today, both in the US and the UK. But the story goes more deeply, for instance in its account of the circumstances surrounding W.D. Hamilton's famous 1964 paper on inclusive fitness, and on the connections of the sociobiology debate to the Human Genome project and the Science Wars. General readers and academics alike will find much to savour in this book.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #361246 in Books
• Published on: 2001-03-15
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 512 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
How do scientists separate their politics from their work--or is such a distinction even possible? These questions frame the two levels of sociologist Ullica Segerstrale's analysis of the sociobiology controversy, Defenders of the Truth. From EO Wilson's 1975 publication of Sociobiology to his 1998 release of Consilience, he has consistently been the often unwilling centre of the vitriolic debate over human nature and its scientific study. Heavy hitters such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and John Maynard Smith have lined up to attack and defend the scientific, political and moral interpretations and implications of Wilson's synthesis, and Dr Segerstrale tells a compelling story of their battles on multiple fronts. The author knows her science, having trained extensively in biochemistry before turning to sociology; while she distances herself from assessing the validity of the various claims, she is clearly sympathetic to Wilson, who seems almost naive at times when his ideas are interpreted ideologically rather than scientifically.

That, of course, is the heart of the contention surrounding sociobiology. The political left, well-represented among evolutionary biologists, has long considered any genetic influence on human behaviour anathema--such theories are believed to support racist policies, even in the unlikely event that they were not merely reflections of racist attitudes. To their credit, many scientists held more complex beliefs, but some used the ideological argument as a back-door to introduce their own neo-Darwinian scientific theories. The struggle for understanding has been eclipsed for some time by the struggle for political and academic survival and dominance, and Segerstrale reports and scrutinises both with humour, intelligence and aplomb. The end of the controversy--if there can be one--is far off, but a careful reading of Defenders of the Truth will give insight into the forces influencing our scientific self-examination. --Rob Lightner

From the Publisher
The definitive account of the nature/nurture controversy
The clash of convictions about science and its social role is nowhere more apparent than the sociobiology controversy. From water-throwing to name-calling, this has stirred angry debate from the start. For the last 25 years, sociobiologists have come under continuous attack by a group of left-wing academics, who have accused the former of dubious and politically dangerous science. But have the critics been right? And what are their own motivations? This book follows the sociobiology controversy as it erupted at Harvard in 1975 until today, both in the US and UK. All protagonists have been defenders of the truth - it is just that everyone’s truth is different. The author has interviewed all participants in the debate, their colleagues and academics in other fields at the height of the controversy.

About the Author
Ullica Segerstråle is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago. Among her degrees are an M.S. in organic chemistry and biochemistry from the University of Helsinki, Finland, an M.A. in Communications from the University of Pennsylvania, and a Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard. She has taught at Smith College and Åbo Akademi, Finland, and worked as a member of the international research group 'The Biological Foundations of Human Culture'
at the Zentrum für Interdisziplinäre Forschung (ZiF) in Bielefeld. She has published widely on such topics as scientists' reasoning about 'good' and 'bad' science, error and fraud, and science and social values. She is also the coauthor of The Hard Program in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. She is a Fulbright Fellow, a fellow of the Salzburg Seminar in American Studies, and the receipient of a Senior Researcher Grant from the Academy of Finalnd, Helsinki.

Customer Reviews

Interesting work on sociology of science
Two important books on modern biology were published in 2000 by authors outside of the field itself. One of them - Janet Radcliffe Richards' "Human Nature after Darwin" - was "a philosophical introduction". Ullica Segerstrale's "Defenders of the Truth - The Sociobiology Debate", written by a sociologist, has a different, complementary point of view. Both books come up with similar results: the criticism against evolutionary psychology has been seriously misplaced.

Ullica Segerstrale studied organic chemistry and biochemistry before turning to the sociology of science, where she concentrated on the sociobiology controversy. She completed her Ph.D. on the subject in 1983, and the present work seems to be an extended version of that work. It is based not only on published papers and books on the subject, but also on personal interviews and conferences / meetings she has been attending even before the controversy really started with E. O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" (1975). As a consequence, "Defenders of the Truth" is a remarkable history of the field with a lot of insider information. In addition to Wilson, we learn about the views of, e.g., William Hamilton (who started the whole field already in 1964), Richard Dawkins (of the "selfish gene" fame) and John Maynard Smith (who brought game theory to biology). The main characters of the other, critical side are Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould and Steven Rose.

However, Segerstrale is not interested only in history, as she deals also with the motives and philosophies behind the debate. Wilson's ideas form a thread throughout the book, since he has never been shy to reveal his moral agenda (he wants to save the human race!). It is interesting to learn how consistent his philosophy has been even though it has also evolved during the last three decades (up to the recent "Consilience" in 1998). This is an important point to note: there are actually many sociobiologies - most of which are not even called by that name - and, e.g., the "sociobiology" of Dawkins is different from that (those) of Wilson's. Segerstrale tells us that "scientific truths do not spring out of Zeus' head like Pallas Athena; they are the end products of a long collective process...". Trivial perhaps, but still important to remember. Especially the way Wilson tries to draw moral out of biology has been criticized by his colleagues, and also Segarstråle finds problems with it (however, the reasoning behind Wilson's view is explained, and morality and ethics can have many sources; Wilson may not be totally wrong, either). This applies also to the relationship between biology and culture: Wilson's culturgens seem somewhat different from Dawkins' memes (note, however, that Wilson himself considers the modern evolutionary psychology nothing but human sociobiology).

Relating to postmodernism, Segerstrale is critical about the "social constructivists" and "relativists" of her own field: science is "reality-driven" enterprise, not a social construct (this especially when we talk about scientific products, not the process). She argues that the critics of the sociobiology form a transition point between the 1960's "new left" and the present "cultural left" (i.e., postmodernists). The key signature of this is the interest in textual analysis of scientific literature, which created very unpleasant results (read, lies) very early on in the sociobiological debate. Wilson and his colleagues were claimed to be right wing zealots and racists, allegations that Segerstrale shows to be totally misplaced. (Actually, it becomes obvious that many "sociobiologists" have leftist views.) Here she takes sides: although she considers moral / political debate and controversy a healthy phenomenon in science like sociobiology, wrongly placed attacks on individuals are not acceptable. In addition, although Segerstrale tries to understand the motives of the critics, I find it difficult to accept that anybody would be so offended by the use of hypothesis in research; Lewontin's quest for "certain" knowledge seems quite ridiculous.

Many evolutionary psychologists are women. Now we have also somebody from the social sciences defending research that has been (wrongly) portrayed, e.g., as anti-feminist. Segerstrale is making an important contribution to the above mentioned "long collective process" not only by her arguments, but also by being female and sociologist (yes, it is silly that this kind of things matter, but we are all human). I was - as a physicist - very pleased to read a sociological study that really made sense; I hope that people on the other side of the debate could find some value in evolutionary psychology by reading this book (as well as the Radcliffe Richards' one). However, note that one may be more able to appreciate all the details included in the book by reading first some more popular works on the subject (e.g., Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" or Wilson's "Consilience").

Smothering an infant science
Segerstrale has done science and the reading public a tremendous service with this account of the "sociobiology wars." Two decades of interviews and a forty page bibliography are vivid testimony to her research abilities. However, this book isn't a just pedantic exercise. Her views of the participants impart a sincere personal account of how she views the collision of ideals among scientists. Segerstrale's approach is amazingly dispassionate. Her Introduction, a fine summary of the issues, states that "the participants are all defenders of the truth." Their views are adhered to passionately with Segerstrale presenting their assertions openly without comment. Later, when she analyzes their motivations, does background meaning become clear as to why this debate hasn't closed.

Sociobiology's path has been pretty bumpy during the generation since E.O. Wilson's book was published. Almost immediately a hue and cry arose from academics and the public alike. Segerstrale carefully presents the views of all the important participants, with special focus on Harvard's Richard Lewontin. It was Lewontin who characterized Wilson's book as "bad science" without suggesting what "good science" might be in addressing the issue. Even the "scientific traditions" of field naturalist versus laboratory experimentalists are examined in the debate's context. Adding to the complexity of personalities and methods is Segerstrale's ongoing discussion of the political status of the period. With race relations, women's issues and other social causes intruding on the scientific debate, the contenders avoid simple pigeonholing. Segerstrale goes to some length in presenting the debate in a broader social context and accomplishes it with finesse.

In the final analysis, it is E.O. Wilson who emerges vaguely from the fray with enhanced stature. While his critics appear mildly panic-stricken from the tenets of sociobiology, Wilson continued his work. Publishing several works embellishing his original ideas, he summarized his efforts and much of the debate in his autobiography, Naturalist. Wilson's critics over the years attacked his "facts" in a "utilitarian" sense - i.e., what impact does a scientific find have on society. As a field researcher, Wilson found this interpretation of science disquieting. The issue then, wasn't "bad science" but "bad interpretation" of scientific results. Segerstrale's analysis of this issue makes compelling reading, bringing the book to a well-structured conclusion. Those wishing to understand what the sociobiology debate [not the science itself] is all about should obtain this book. It's a stunning resource. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

For the dedicated insider
Taking us behind the scenes of the sociobiology debate, Segerstråle presents a variety of interesting perspectives. If you wonder how the debate can appear so ferocious and the protagonists seem to disagree so fundamentally this book is for you. If you have never wondered about this - or indeed are looking for an introduction to the actual scientific issues - you should turn elsewhere. Segerstråle writes well but the book is much too long and suffers from serious problems of structure. Heavy editing would have helped greatly. Nevertheless, an intriguing back-stage account.