The Blank Slate - Steven Pinker

It is certainly reassuring that there are authors out there with razor-sharp intellects ready and willing to rip to pieces the scientific charlatans, the people that weasel their way into our affections only to transplant false ideas of identity through exploiting the science brand to ill effect.

We see this exploitation of science a lot these days. I think science is suffering from its own success. We're at a juncture now, as science overtakes religion as the route to and root of truth, then the layman gets increasingly impatient where answers are not forthcoming. I am ashamed to admit that I did not continue with genetics for precisely this reason: a page in a University-level biology textbook is typically the result of several people's life work. I was in too much of a rush to understand that in terms of achievement, this is immense. Science is slow, and our lust for knowledge corrupts this process and allows scientific charlatans to make claims that put them in the lime light, and probably in the money too.

Having said this I do have some doubts about Pinker's argument. He's basically arguing for a sensible position on the nurture-nature debate, one where genes and the environment shape our evolution, both personal and historical. Nothing controversial here you might think, but Pinker's shows how many scientists have got it wrong, skewing 'reason' to align with their own political beliefs. So for instance, if you're 'right wing' then you'll believe in the determinism of the genes so the need to expunge those with bad inheritance. If you're 'left wing' you'll believe that the mind and culture are separate from biology so we just have to organise our environment in the most civilised way (- oh dear, perhaps this is a good sign that I find it hard to describe the link between politics and science).

When I studied genetics however it was the way that statistics was used that bothered me. The debate hinges on studies of twins. We are told that twins have remarkable similarities even when they are separated at birth and grow in different environments. What's more, when adopted children are treated exactly the same, they invariably turn out very different. This is evidence to the idea that there is a strong causal link between our genetic makeup and behavior. My suspicions rise because of three main points:

1. There are not many identical twins in the world and fewer that have been raised in very different environments
2. The way that similarities and differences are characterised - I am just very skeptical about putting objective properties on something as abstract as human behavior
   
3. The studies tend to be short and cross sectional (as far as I know) and people do not react in the same way to an environment each time. Humans are not like chemicals in a test tube, we can very easily play with the minds of the scientists making the observations.

Of course biologists use other techniques aside from twin studies. In general they will look up and down the stack in terms of genes, proteins, cells, organs, tissues, ecosystem to try to explain observations at many levels, and describe causal links between the stack of biological units.

Even writing these down makes me suspect my own suspicions. Perhaps these doubts stem from having seen so much flaky psychology, and not having met many identical twins. But more worryingly, perhaps I hold a mental model of human nature that is not well informed. Despite having a degree in genetics my mind holds out to to a set of values that wants to believe that genes play little part in shaping our lives.

Its funny, writing this down feels ridiculous. Of course our genes play an enormous role in shaping our lives. I think my pigheadedness stems from a belief that once we understand a system, then we can control it, so re-gain free will.

Perhaps in the future we will go to school, put our genetic map into a computer, some software will then tell us how we are likely to live our lives, and we can then formulate the necessary learning schedule to mitigate against an unhappy life.

But, having said this we're faced with the question, how deep does the rabbit hole go. Also we have no idea how much we should use our ability to solve problems as opposed to just going with the flow e.g. does vaccination solve problems, or store them up for future generations? Will genetic manipulation give grief to civilisation in 5 years. I suppose you have to have faith in 'progress' and man's ingenuity.