It's taken me a while to try to write the second part of this review. That's because Jonathan Marks' Why I Am Not A Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge is a confusing and at times infuriating read. But it's also a book that truly needed to be written. Dr. Marks, a professor of biological anthropology at the University of North Carolina Charlotte, holds his doctorate in genetics. The confusing aspects of his book, I believe, stem from the fact that Marks is in the difficult position of critiquing a worldview which has become intractably interwoven with modern society over the last 100-200 years. Anyone who has read and loved Daniel Quinn's Ishmael should recognize this worldview as what Quinn would call a "story", a form of mythology which defines a culture's roles and expectations in the world. Western culture has been saying that "science" is one particular thing, and Marks believes that "science" is something else entirely. His is a philosophical, anthropological and semantic project.
Whereas Gary Taubes had merely (ha!) to replace one statement of fact (dietary fat is more harmful to health than dietary carbohydrates) with its opposite, Marks is trying to reform how we even think about science. A factual argument like Taubes' is easily supported using evidence, and thus evidence forms the bulk of Good Calories, Bad Calories. Marks spends more of his time attempting to dissect the meaning of various uses of the word "science". He explores several historical events in the history of science -- in particular shameful events like the proliferation of eugenics and scientific racism among scientists -- but he is less interested in showing that they were wrong (which is largely obvious), and more interested in analyzing how these events were allowed to happen.
Marks' fundamental question is this: Given what science is supposed to be, what are we to think when it is not what it's supposed to be? Do we end up with a No True Scotsman fallacy? I.e., deviations and unethical acts by scientists simply don't count as science? Or should we instead expand our understanding of science to include all activities of scientists, good and bad? Should science be considered an abstract amoral system of inquiry? Can it really be separated from the actions of the human beings who undertake it?
Critics of religion don't tolerate this gambit. To say that Christianity is really only the teachings of Jesus, and evils done by Christians are not "real" Christianity -- this is immediately excoriated as a cop-out. So why does science get the benefit of existing on a transcendent, incorruptible existential plane? And given such a metaphysical definition, how are scientists to be held accountable for their actions?
Marks raises some thought-provoking points. For instance, on the matter of eugenics movement from the late 19th to early 20th century, Marks notes that the scientific community did little to nothing to critique the theoretical basis of eugenics. It was only after the Third Reich that social pressure made eugenics unacceptable. Science did not correct itself, as it is supposed to do using the checks and balances of evidence, reproducibility or theoretical coherence - even though all the material they needed was already there to roundly dismiss eugenics. The few scientists who understood that eugenics was rubbish stayed silent. And, because the scientific community did not police itself and purge itself of these wrong ideas, the post-WWII suppression of eugenics did not really extinguish these views among the scientific and social enclaves which originally believed them. Instead, they were driven underground, to return again in the scientific racism of Sir Cyril Burt and of Hernstein and Murray's The Bell Curve. Worse, the fact that social and political standards wound up determining what was acceptable makes racists feel self-righteously "censored" or "oppressed". (Marks also groups Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology, and the adjunct support of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, as within the tradition of biological determinism that also includes Social Darwinism. Them's fightin' words. The debate on this still rages and is marked by factionalism. An excellent timeline of the Sociobiology controversy is to be found in Ullica Segerstråle's Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond.)
Perhaps the most inflammatory part of Why I Am Not A Scientist is Marks' critique of the Human Genome Project. Marks makes the outrageous statement that the architects of the Human Genome Project, in their effort to secure government funding (which was possibly to be directed to the Superconducting Supercollider instead), greatly exaggerated the practical value of what their research would uncover. Marks says that the emphasis on genes "for" things is a clever and cynical way to sway public opinion in favor of genetics research. The unintended result is an undermining of 100 years of anthropological understanding of cultural diversity in favor of a dubious theory of biological determinism. Worse, Marks argues, the Human Genome Project has yet to produce one practical (as opposed to theoretical) benefit. Scientists anticipated finding millions of genes in the human genome, but the final number was closer to 25,000 (technically "genes" are only those pieces of DNA which form instructions for building proteins, although pop culture has now normalized the use of "gene" to refer to any DNA at all). In the intervening time since the successful decoding of the human geneome, more scientists have begun to consider the enormous role of "non-coding DNA". Non-coding DNA (which was once oh-so-impartially called "junk DNA"...) probably regulates much, much more of development and life history than do genes. (The biological study of this interpretation has the catchy name of "evo-devo".)
However, despite the disappointing yield of the HGP, Marks recounts being shouted down at a conference for daring to question the real value of the project. He attributes the dogmatic defense of the HGP to the perennial quest for more and more funding. Marks' conclusion is that scientists, especially geneticists, will say anything, regardless of whether it's true, if it will help draw more funding. Perhaps the worst hypocrisy is the way in which the HGP backers, Marks claims, attempted to dismiss the aims of the Superconducting Supercollider as too theoretical.
Despite his fantastic, blood-boiling analysis, Marks stumbles a few times. I was particularly dismayed by his interpretation of the Sokal affair. Marks doesn't really condone Sokal's deception of social scientists, who only trusted Sokal in good faith. When a scientist submits an article, how is a social scientist to blame for trusting that a scientist knows what he's talking about? It's not their field, and to trust the other's expertise is in fact the most humble response. On this matter, I can agree with Marks. However, he doesn't make it clear enough that postmodernism really started it. Literary theorists really were making completely uninformed, unscientific positive statements about the nature of reality. Sokal's hoax was immature, although justified, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it didn't really do much to open up any debate between the Two Cultures.
Marks also makes the absurd statement that science which contributes to human unhappiness should not be undertaken. If happiness (as opposed to truth) were the goal of science, probably many discoveries would have not been made, because they arose from "bad" science. Marks is right that science cannot be divorced from culture or politics, but it runs both ways. If not for military research (whose result is often better ways to kill), we would not have the peaceful by-products. Marks also doesn't seem to consider the changing cultural definition of human happiness. Had the metric of human happiness been applied during the Medieval period, heliocentrism could probably have been powerfully argued to contribute to human unhappiness. If doubting the Bible causes people to go to Hell, how could science which produces such doubt possibly be ethical? Marks doesn't realize the diversity of cultural standards of happiness -- which is particularly ridiculous, since he's an anthropologist!
My great hope is that Why I Am Not A Scientist will be read by many, and outrage at least a few. More books on this matter must be written, as the voices of the non-scientific disciplines are progressively drowned out by the march of captial-S Science. Science is overdue for its Martin Luther. Marks (for better or for worse) is not this figure, but perhaps Why I Am Not A Scientist will inspire that person yet to be.
Whereas Gary Taubes had merely (ha!) to replace one statement of fact (dietary fat is more harmful to health than dietary carbohydrates) with its opposite, Marks is trying to reform how we even think about science. A factual argument like Taubes' is easily supported using evidence, and thus evidence forms the bulk of Good Calories, Bad Calories. Marks spends more of his time attempting to dissect the meaning of various uses of the word "science". He explores several historical events in the history of science -- in particular shameful events like the proliferation of eugenics and scientific racism among scientists -- but he is less interested in showing that they were wrong (which is largely obvious), and more interested in analyzing how these events were allowed to happen.
Marks' fundamental question is this: Given what science is supposed to be, what are we to think when it is not what it's supposed to be? Do we end up with a No True Scotsman fallacy? I.e., deviations and unethical acts by scientists simply don't count as science? Or should we instead expand our understanding of science to include all activities of scientists, good and bad? Should science be considered an abstract amoral system of inquiry? Can it really be separated from the actions of the human beings who undertake it?
Critics of religion don't tolerate this gambit. To say that Christianity is really only the teachings of Jesus, and evils done by Christians are not "real" Christianity -- this is immediately excoriated as a cop-out. So why does science get the benefit of existing on a transcendent, incorruptible existential plane? And given such a metaphysical definition, how are scientists to be held accountable for their actions?
Marks raises some thought-provoking points. For instance, on the matter of eugenics movement from the late 19th to early 20th century, Marks notes that the scientific community did little to nothing to critique the theoretical basis of eugenics. It was only after the Third Reich that social pressure made eugenics unacceptable. Science did not correct itself, as it is supposed to do using the checks and balances of evidence, reproducibility or theoretical coherence - even though all the material they needed was already there to roundly dismiss eugenics. The few scientists who understood that eugenics was rubbish stayed silent. And, because the scientific community did not police itself and purge itself of these wrong ideas, the post-WWII suppression of eugenics did not really extinguish these views among the scientific and social enclaves which originally believed them. Instead, they were driven underground, to return again in the scientific racism of Sir Cyril Burt and of Hernstein and Murray's The Bell Curve. Worse, the fact that social and political standards wound up determining what was acceptable makes racists feel self-righteously "censored" or "oppressed". (Marks also groups Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology, and the adjunct support of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, as within the tradition of biological determinism that also includes Social Darwinism. Them's fightin' words. The debate on this still rages and is marked by factionalism. An excellent timeline of the Sociobiology controversy is to be found in Ullica Segerstråle's Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond.)
Perhaps the most inflammatory part of Why I Am Not A Scientist is Marks' critique of the Human Genome Project. Marks makes the outrageous statement that the architects of the Human Genome Project, in their effort to secure government funding (which was possibly to be directed to the Superconducting Supercollider instead), greatly exaggerated the practical value of what their research would uncover. Marks says that the emphasis on genes "for" things is a clever and cynical way to sway public opinion in favor of genetics research. The unintended result is an undermining of 100 years of anthropological understanding of cultural diversity in favor of a dubious theory of biological determinism. Worse, Marks argues, the Human Genome Project has yet to produce one practical (as opposed to theoretical) benefit. Scientists anticipated finding millions of genes in the human genome, but the final number was closer to 25,000 (technically "genes" are only those pieces of DNA which form instructions for building proteins, although pop culture has now normalized the use of "gene" to refer to any DNA at all). In the intervening time since the successful decoding of the human geneome, more scientists have begun to consider the enormous role of "non-coding DNA". Non-coding DNA (which was once oh-so-impartially called "junk DNA"...) probably regulates much, much more of development and life history than do genes. (The biological study of this interpretation has the catchy name of "evo-devo".)
However, despite the disappointing yield of the HGP, Marks recounts being shouted down at a conference for daring to question the real value of the project. He attributes the dogmatic defense of the HGP to the perennial quest for more and more funding. Marks' conclusion is that scientists, especially geneticists, will say anything, regardless of whether it's true, if it will help draw more funding. Perhaps the worst hypocrisy is the way in which the HGP backers, Marks claims, attempted to dismiss the aims of the Superconducting Supercollider as too theoretical.
Despite his fantastic, blood-boiling analysis, Marks stumbles a few times. I was particularly dismayed by his interpretation of the Sokal affair. Marks doesn't really condone Sokal's deception of social scientists, who only trusted Sokal in good faith. When a scientist submits an article, how is a social scientist to blame for trusting that a scientist knows what he's talking about? It's not their field, and to trust the other's expertise is in fact the most humble response. On this matter, I can agree with Marks. However, he doesn't make it clear enough that postmodernism really started it. Literary theorists really were making completely uninformed, unscientific positive statements about the nature of reality. Sokal's hoax was immature, although justified, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it didn't really do much to open up any debate between the Two Cultures.
Marks also makes the absurd statement that science which contributes to human unhappiness should not be undertaken. If happiness (as opposed to truth) were the goal of science, probably many discoveries would have not been made, because they arose from "bad" science. Marks is right that science cannot be divorced from culture or politics, but it runs both ways. If not for military research (whose result is often better ways to kill), we would not have the peaceful by-products. Marks also doesn't seem to consider the changing cultural definition of human happiness. Had the metric of human happiness been applied during the Medieval period, heliocentrism could probably have been powerfully argued to contribute to human unhappiness. If doubting the Bible causes people to go to Hell, how could science which produces such doubt possibly be ethical? Marks doesn't realize the diversity of cultural standards of happiness -- which is particularly ridiculous, since he's an anthropologist!
My great hope is that Why I Am Not A Scientist will be read by many, and outrage at least a few. More books on this matter must be written, as the voices of the non-scientific disciplines are progressively drowned out by the march of captial-S Science. Science is overdue for its Martin Luther. Marks (for better or for worse) is not this figure, but perhaps Why I Am Not A Scientist will inspire that person yet to be.
