Selfish Gene
In school, I
hated biology. And yet, years later, I absolutely loved The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins’ masterpiece. I realized the
ultimate proof of how well someone explains things is if, after hearing the
explanation, you come away feeling, “How could I have missed that? It’s so
obvious!”
What I hadn’t
realized was that Dawkins’ book wasn’t just appreciated by laymen like me. As Matt
Ridley put it:
“Books that achieve both — changing science and reaching the public
— are rare. Charles Darwin's On
the Origin of Species (1859) was
one. The Selfish Gene by
Richard Dawkins is another.”
And here I had
thought that most of the book was just explaining the theories that had already
been accepted! But no, points out Ridley. In the third chapter, Dawkins
mentioned the then unexplained “problem” of excess DNA: most species had way
too much DNA then they needed. Dawkins’ hypothesis for that?
“From the point of view of the selfish
genes themselves there is no paradox. The true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive,
no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose
that it is a parasite.”
And boy, was
that hypothesis right! The scientists who proved it subsequently acknowledged
Dawkins as the inspiration. Further, Ridley points out that the book explained
so many mysteries of the genome “long before DNA sequencing became routine”
(Ridley’s words).
Dawkins was
explicit in his book that he was (mostly) explaining the theories of others.
But he did such a good job of it in the book that:
“They were equally quick to appreciate that
he had done something more than explain their ideas.”
An interesting
point in Ridley’s article was that Dawkins had considered naming the book, The Immortal Gene. Looking back:
“Today, Dawkins regrets not taking the
advice. It might have short-circuited the endless arguments, so beloved of his
critics and so redolent of the intentional stance (in which we tend to impute
mental abilities to unconscious things, from thunderstorms to plants), about
whether selfishness need be conscious. It might even have avoided the common
misconception that Dawkins was advocating individual selfishness.”
Incidentally,
the book also set off the trend of publishers willing to take a chance with popular
science writing, including Chaos by
James Gleick and Stephen Hawking’s A
Brief History of Time.
Wow! There’s so
much to that book I didn’t know.
"There is so much more ... I didn't know" is one good point I believe in always. Only it need not be about physics, maths or biology - it's about everything we learn, everything about life.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, this evolution business never settled the score for me. I am inclined believe that while evolution is principally true, our glorious scientists of the West do not have a complete understanding of the subject as yet.
Today, the scientists would stoutly deny evolution can have any goal,purpose,meaning, direction etc. If any layman says, "It looks like some goal, direction etc." the scientist will show exasperation. He or she will condescend to briefly touch on how among the many possibilities of immense molecular jumbling, some are quantifiable probabilities. That explains all happenings! (He or she may use different words and elaborations but it would all actually amount to only this finally. Who can argue with a scientist who would impress on you that you nothing other than a bunch of molecules! He can actually show how much carbon your body has how much calcium, how much potassium etc. The thing is, it is absolutely true. And yet it is so so limited knowledge, not even of full weight even in the Western own science of biology. When it comes to psychology, nobody knows how precisely calcium decides on one's thought is not even discussed unless there is a reason for it! And yet, there is hesitancy, virtually denial, to admit there is going to be some different and less matter oriented elaborations as you higher.) Thus the scientist may conclude with, "If you, Mister Layman of lowly knowledge wishes to believe evolution can have some other point, there is no law to imprison you for your idiocy! So suit yourself and live in the pit of ignorance." And yet, I continue with my, "I am not done yet Mister Scientist! I am neither leaning on any religion or something to oppose you. That would be idiotic. But I feel convinced you are dealing in partial knowledge but feel unshakable in your foundation, that which you have today."
While scientists are unhappy with the perception of laymen, the same scientist may not mind the use such expressions as, "The true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less", which is taken from your own blog here. "Gene wants to survive" or "Gene wants to be selfish" are all antipathy to the scientist. Some euphemism for the same, in so far as it is ingrained in the scientific methodology of today, would be fine.
I can't help wondering as time passes if science is really not about intrinsic truth but only those truths that is within the framework of formalized science and its mighty organizational grip. I see less and less of the openness with which people like Micheal Faraday learnt from Nature and shared their finding with us. No organization kept Faraday bound, though much effort went into in that direction nevertheless. In the end, Lord Kelvin who oppressed Faraday has gone down terribly is history(he is not even considered much worthy as a physicist) while Faraday's flag still flies high.
Today the organization of science can render every scientist subservient to it! You may not believe this is true but you need to know that without political protection and huge finance for research nothing at all in science is possible today. These two will are making all the decisions on behalf of science today - that which steps to take and which direction to go etc. What suits us, the powerful, shall be the way of progress in science! This too is not bad. Who is anyone (particularly me) to say science should take this direction or that direction. Let things go their own way.