Re: "crime gene"-was it founs??

From: Larry Moran (lamoran_at_bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca)
Date: 09/03/04 

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:27:20 +0000 (UTC)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 03:50:03 +0000 (UTC),
Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> Larry Moran <lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote or quoted:
>> Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:
>> > Anon. <bob.ohara@sod.off.spammers.helsinki.fi> wrote or quoted:
>
>> >> Criminality is social - is there really a gene for smoking in
>> >> an Irish bar?
>> >
>> > Definitely - according to conventional biological usage.
>> >
>> > If you have any doubt about the matter, I refer you to the section
>> > on "genes for tying shoelaces" - in The Extended Phenotype - p.22.
>>
>> Here's another point of view .....
>
> [snip]
>
>> Rose, S. (1998) Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism.
>> Oxford University Press, p. 116
>
> I read lifelines. My book review would not be complimentary :-(
>
> It would read something like:
>
> This book is one long winge about the evils of genetic determinism -
> and the views of authors such as Richard Dawkins. I learned next
> to nothing from it - and regard the time I spend on it as time
> wasted.

This doesn't surprise me. It's clear from your postings that you
are not going to be in sympathy with the views of Rose (or Lewontin).
It's clear that you choose to learn nothing from them. That wasn't
the point of posting these quotations. I wanted to make sure that
our readers were aware of other points of view.

>> "Complex organisms cannot be construed as the sum of their
>> genes, nor do genes alone build particular items of anatomy
>> or behavior by themselves. Most genes influence several aspects
>> of anatomy and behavior - as they operate through complex
>> interactions with other genes and their products, and with
>> environmental factors both within and outside the developing
>> organism. We fall into a deep error, not just a harmless
>> oversimplification, when we speak of genes 'for' particular
>> items of anatomy or behavior.
>>
>> No single gene determines even the most concrete example of
>> my physical being, say the length of my right thumb. The very
>> notion of a gene 'for' something as complex as 'intelligence'
>> lapses into absurdity. We use the word *intelligence* to
>> describe an array of largely independent and socially defined
>> mental attributes, not a quantity of a single something,
>> secreted by one gene, measurable as one number, and capable
>> of arranging human diversity into one line ordered by relative
>> mental growth.
>>
>> To cite one example of this fallacy, in 1996 scientists
>> reported the discovery of a gene for novelty-seeking behavior
>> - generally regarded as a good thing. In 1997 another study
>> detected a linkage between the same gene and a propensity for
>> heroin addiction. Did the 'good' gene for enhanced exploration
>> become the 'bad' gene for addictive tendencies? The biochemistry
>> may be constant, but context and background matter."
>>
>> Gould, S.J. (2002) "The Without and Within of Smart Mice"
>> in I HAVE LANDED, Harmony Books, New York p. 234
>
> I haven't read "I Have Landed" yet. However here Gould is not just
> complaining that the terminology is misleading - he is speaking
> as though he is unaware of what it is actually used to mean.

I don't think it's going to advance your case if your main argument
is to accuse Gould of being stupid.

> As he says, his interpretation is an "absurdity". But Gould is
> attacking a straw man of his own making. Noboby using the "gene
> for X" terminology was ever asserting that single genes determined
> behaviour - and Gould should have been aware of that.

Gould is well aware of the problem, as is Rose. Neither of them claim
that their opponents are thinking of a single gene "for" a complex
trait. Both of them claim that the excuse used by people like you
(it's just a short-hand way of expressing something) is deeply
flawed and distorts one's thinking about genes and phenotypes. That's
why Gould said ...

     "We fall into a deep error, not just a harmless
      oversimplification, when we speak of genes 'for'
      particular items of anatomy or behavior."

Larry Moran

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "crime gene"-was it founs??
    ... >>But Gould is attacking a straw man of his own making. ... > between strains is, at least in some cases, a behavioural one. ... > genes, one gene for uncapping, and one gene for throwing out... ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: "crime gene"-was it founs??
    ... Tell Gould to stop attacking ridiculous straw men, ... ``No single gene determines even the most concrete example of ... notion of a gene 'for' something as complex as 'intelligence' ... those who are arguing that the terminology is bad need to be ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Quantcast