Skip to main content

Rocking the foundations of biology and politics

A major revolution is occurring in evolutionary biology. In this voices from Oxford video the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, Professor Denis Noble, explains what is happening and why it is set to change the nature of biology and of the importance of physiology to that change. The lecture was given to a general audience at a major international Congress held in Suzhou China.

The implications of the change extend far beyond biology itself. This video will interest economists, business leaders, politicians and others who deal with the important social questions that have been raised by ideas in evolutionary biology ever since Darwin wrote his Origin of Species.

This will change your view of genes and the gene-centred view of biology, sociology and politics. Tragically for decades this 'selfish gene' view, that we are 'prisoners' of our genetics, genetic determinism has bedevilled biological thinking and influenced sociological thought. The idea that society 'doesn't exist', or that where it does it is simply an aggregate of  individual, 'self-interested behaviours' has been at the centre of economic and political thought for almost half a century.

It had its zenith with Thatcher's famous statement that "there is no such thing as society." I would also argue that it was also central to New Labour's approach. We stopped seeking social solutions to social problems. Why? Because we stopped believing in 'social problems'. Problems were to do with individuals behaving badly. 

It is the same thought structure that leads to the stereotype of 'welfare scroungers' and 'welfare dependency' rather than addressing the real social and economic issues.

What biology is teaching us now is that environmentally acquired characteristics can be inherited. In other words, the environment matters and that includes the social environment. It affects our health and the health of our offspring. If we are to address health issues we should stop simply seeking a gene-centred magic bullet, but consider social, preventative solutions.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology by Denis Noble is published as an article in Experimental Physiology.

You may also be interested in my article: Hilary and Steven Rose lift the lid on modern biomedical science

Ray Noble is News Editor for Voices from Oxford

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown