Re: Biological Reductionism/Ideology

At 10:10 am -0700 23/2/01, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

>OK -- the indisputable answer to the different question is, we don't know
>yet.  But based on what's already being done in agriculture, and the
>gearing up of medical research aimed at finding a genetic basis for
>various traits/behaviors, I'm alarmed.  Again, logically, if biological
>reductionism doesn't work, other than as a pernicious ideology, then my
>alarm is misplaced.  I hope you're right.


Well, the 30k figure that both the Human Genome Project and Craig Ventner's
(spelling?) outfit came up with has been a real shocker to many people;
complexity is the name of the game.

Already, earlier, there had been articles about the genetic basis of
cancers, suggesting that earlier optimism of simplistic notions of such a
basis (crudely summarised as 'cancer genes') had been misplaced. Re
behaviour, other than some die-hards, I suspect that many, perhaps a
majority, are also of the view that complexity is definitely the name of
the game here.

The recognition of complexity is the basis for that developing area of work
known as proteomics.

What concerns me, however, is the drift in some of the discussion on the
list that appears to suggest that analytical procedure is reductionism.

Re Richard's view re the 'pragmatics' of biological reductionism, I think
it undeniable that from the point of view of practical outcomes, of course
biological reductionism 'works'; the problem is that it's gross
simplification can and has, in so many instances, resulted in new problems.
On the other hand, in so far as no one can have a god's eye view, it does
appear to me that we will never have a complete picture of the whole. Which
isn't an argument for reductionism, just an argument for humility and
consciousness that whatever we do we'd best be continually monitoring and
watching out for unintended effects resulting from the partiality of our
knowledge and, in some instances (which instances should, I think, be
decided by public debate and discussion and not be the prerogative of any
self-appointed guardians) the precautionary principle should be operative.

Incidentally -- and I acknowledge to being deliberately provocative on the
basis of less than thorough knowledge in genetics -- it appears to me that
the argument for complexity puts paid to well-meaning claims that since all
humans are 99.99% genetically identical, therefore there is no such thing
as race. Because we are no longer talking simple quantity. Actually, this
should have been evident from the degree of quantitative genetic identity
between humans and chimps. None of which justifies racism, but it means
that racism can't be fought for or against on genetic quantities. But has
it ever? Hasn't it always been the recruitment of allegedly "naturalistic"
arguments for positions that were, in fact, decided elsewhere?


Khoo Khay Jin