Rating: 
Summary: He's yet to meet Ishmael
Review: A catchy and provocative title is now de-rigueur for popular science books on the subject of genetics. It's somewhat surprising then that the message of WHAT IT MEANS TO BE 98% CHIMPANZEE is that it doesn't really mean that much at all. Marks takes a distinctly middle-of-the-road position on most of the scientific debate that has spun off from the human versus ape discussion. Marks says that "the extent to which our DNA resembles an ape's predicts nothing about our genetic similarity to apes, much less about any moral or political consequences arising from it."In chapters such as "The Ape in You", "How People Differ from One Another" "The Meaning of Human Variation" and "Human Nature" the author lays out his views on hot-button topics such as the biological reality of "races" and "nature vs nurture". Marks is not a believer in strict genetic determinism and therefore does not take a reductionist view of human nature - i.e genetics as a causal factor for everything. He's somewhat more of a humanist but this nod to a more environmentally deterministic view does not extend to an all embracing view of our fellow primates. The non-human primates - Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Oranutans have an increasing number of human advocates who say that there are moral and ethical consequences that stem from the genetic similarity between apes and humans. Primatologists such as Jane Goodall argue that the higher intelligence and emotional awareness of apes demands a distinction in how we view them, and more importantly, how we treat them. In the chapter "Human Rights for Apes?" Marks discusses the Great Ape Project and the long term objective of getting an U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Apes. Marks will have none of this and sees such positions as pretentiousness on the part of scientists. The science on animal consciousness is still inconclusive especially as it relates to the Great Apes. It's in the area of self-awareness and higher order thinking ("thinking about thoughts") where much of the debate takes place but this is not Marks' primary interest. Marks' main point is that there is a better approach to understanding these issues, one that is holistic rather than a binary "either/or" argument. Marks introduces us to his speciality in chapter one - "Molecular Anthropology" - and tells us that it combines the reductive power of genetics with the humanistic vision of anthropology. It thus allows practitioners to steer clear of ideologically influenced science. It's ironic because in arguing about the merits of his field of study, Marks himself comes across as tunnel-visioned and obviously enamored with his own view of things. This is the only problem with this otherwise well written and wide-ranging discussion on some of the current debates in science. Although Marks wouldn't support it because it talks about a sentient Gorilla, for me, Daniel Quinn's book ISHMAEL provides the best overview on this whole debate. Our scientific beliefs give us a view of the world. Ishmael says it's going to be hard for us to give it up because what we're doing is "right" and "giving up would mean that all along [we've] been wrong. It would mean [we've] never known how to rule the world. It would mean relinquishing [our] pretensions to godhood." As if to prove the point, this book can't end without trying to tackle the "big" questions. Marks concludes with a chapter on "Science, Religion, and Worldview". Enjoy the book for what it is: a good general introduction to genetics, with particular reference to apes and ourselves. Just remember that scientists - even iconoclasts such as Marks who does a great job of cutting through the debate - still are subject to their own biases and particular worldviews. Science itself is still undecided on much of what you read about here.
Rating: 
Summary: Post-modernist persiflage
Review: Accepting the fallacy of Marks' title, let us start on a positive note. Marks wants to keep apes and humans separate. Fair enough. I don't want to live on termites on a stick, and it's doubtful chimps want to worry about traffic congestion, tax rates or political corruption. Marks wants scientists to do their job well. Who can argue? Marks has courage - he has the temerity to assault the venerable E. O. Wilson, the articulate Richard Dawkins and the revered Jane Goodall. Marks is against racism. Hardly debatable. Marks seems a pretty upstanding fellow. Why then, is this book such an insult to the intelligence? Mostly because it is a froth of misleading statements, misdirected wrath, misconceptions and mistaken views of science. Marks goes to unusual lengths in dismissing the research achievements of many scientists in both field and laboratory. He blithely dismisses the disclosure that chimpanzee and human genes are nearly identical as "the most overly exposed factoid in modern science." It's not significant because it confuses precision with accuracy. From there, Marks goes on to castigate a legion of scientists for their failure to "get it right" the first time around. Few escape his lash - even Linneaus, who virtually invented classifying life, is a victim, and perpetrator, of cultural artifacts in naming species. This from a man who finds culture an unbridgeable chasm between humans and animals! Marks spends much of the remainder of the book discussing racial/cultural undercurrents in science. He finds far too much of it in current anthropology. He's correct in this, but his case is "overblown"- a favourite phrase of his. In a welter of complaints, he finds but two scientists to exonerate of the charge: Richard Leowntin and - himself. He doesn't want any cultural or behavioural relationship between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, a favourite plaint of Lewontin's. Any hint of sociobiology, which he incorrectly defines as the study of human behaviour, must be rejected. This attitude ignores the wealth of research published during the past generation. Marks' shots against sociobiology would be amusing except that so many will accept them uncritically. Like his mentor, Marks wants humanity to evolve without any evolutionary baggage. Behavioural studies of modern animals are irrelevant according to Marks. Thus is cast aside the whole realm of Darwin's evolution by natural selection. At least as far as it concerns humans. This attitude fits adroitly with Marks' intended reader community. He blames science for many social attitudes, delving deeply into the history of science to build his case. His brief runs from Plato onward, ending with the efforts to map the human genome. Science has long suffered from its cultural roots. The case is flawed by Marks failure to recognize that all through history, science has sought to reveal natures' secrets. It's a process of fits and starts, each gain a limited success. That inability to "get it all right the first time" is inherent in the process. It accomplishes little to portray the process as invalid. If some people have not performed to his expectations doesn't mean science should give up trying. The area that Marks clearly wants abandoned is understanding of what drives human beings. That some scientists want to look more deeply into the human genome he perceives as a wasted effort. Along with Lewontin, Marks rails against "genes for" this or that aspect of life - particularly human life. Are we to assume then that we should stop looking? Because faulty genes have been shown to invoke certain disorders but haven't been found for others, is the list now complete? He inveighs against looking for genes for criminal behaviour. We don't know enough about how DNA works to decide one way or another. Do we give up analysing how genes perform? And what exactly is criminal behaviour? Even Marks uses statistics of prison populations to build his case. But none of the Enron executives are in prison, nor are likely to be. Do we exclude them from genetic analysis to unravel what genes lead us to do? This book will go far in inflaming the already anti-scientific attitude prevalent in North American schools. Statements such as "science is not generally accurate" and "scientific statements are routinely falsified" [p. 279] aren't likely to entice anyone into the scientific fold. Students will not be encouraged to enter science disciplines when they're told "it is no easier to get the average scientist to accept responsibility than it is to get the average four-year-old to accept responsibility. After all, Marks is a scientist himself, his statements must be valid. We must assume, it is supposed, that he and Lewontin stand alone by having donned the mantle of responsibility. Yet his book is permeated with complaints that statements made by other scientists have been uncritically accepted. Marks owes the scientific community an apology. More importantly, he owes every young person interested in science an apology for describing them as likely to become irresponsible children instead of aspiring grown-ups. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Post-modernist persiflage
Review: Accepting the fallacy of Marks' title, let us start on a positive note. Marks wants to keep apes and humans separate. Fair enough. I don't want to live on termites on a stick, and it's doubtful chimps want to worry about traffic congestion, tax rates or political corruption. Marks wants scientists to do their job well. Who can argue? Marks has courage - he has the temerity to assault the venerable E. O. Wilson, the articulate Richard Dawkins and the revered Jane Goodall. Marks is against racism. Hardly debatable. Marks seems a pretty upstanding fellow. Why then, is this book such an insult to the intelligence? Mostly because it is a froth of misleading statements, misdirected wrath, misconceptions and mistaken views of science. Marks goes to unusual lengths in dismissing the research achievements of many scientists in both field and laboratory. He blithely dismisses the disclosure that chimpanzee and human genes are nearly identical as "the most overly exposed factoid in modern science." It's not significant because it confuses precision with accuracy. From there, Marks goes on to castigate a legion of scientists for their failure to "get it right" the first time around. Few escape his lash - even Linneaus, who virtually invented classifying life, is a victim, and perpetrator, of cultural artifacts in naming species. This from a man who finds culture an unbridgeable chasm between humans and animals! Marks spends much of the remainder of the book discussing racial/cultural undercurrents in science. He finds far too much of it in current anthropology. He's correct in this, but his case is "overblown"- a favourite phrase of his. In a welter of complaints, he finds but two scientists to exonerate of the charge: Richard Leowntin and - himself. He doesn't want any cultural or behavioural relationship between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, a favourite plaint of Lewontin's. Any hint of sociobiology, which he incorrectly defines as the study of human behaviour, must be rejected. This attitude ignores the wealth of research published during the past generation. Marks' shots against sociobiology would be amusing except that so many will accept them uncritically. Like his mentor, Marks wants humanity to evolve without any evolutionary baggage. Behavioural studies of modern animals are irrelevant according to Marks. Thus is cast aside the whole realm of Darwin's evolution by natural selection. At least as far as it concerns humans. This attitude fits adroitly with Marks' intended reader community. He blames science for many social attitudes, delving deeply into the history of science to build his case. His brief runs from Plato onward, ending with the efforts to map the human genome. Science has long suffered from its cultural roots. The case is flawed by Marks failure to recognize that all through history, science has sought to reveal natures' secrets. It's a process of fits and starts, each gain a limited success. That inability to "get it all right the first time" is inherent in the process. It accomplishes little to portray the process as invalid. If some people have not performed to his expectations doesn't mean science should give up trying. The area that Marks clearly wants abandoned is understanding of what drives human beings. That some scientists want to look more deeply into the human genome he perceives as a wasted effort. Along with Lewontin, Marks rails against "genes for" this or that aspect of life - particularly human life. Are we to assume then that we should stop looking? Because faulty genes have been shown to invoke certain disorders but haven't been found for others, is the list now complete? He inveighs against looking for genes for criminal behaviour. We don't know enough about how DNA works to decide one way or another. Do we give up analysing how genes perform? And what exactly is criminal behaviour? Even Marks uses statistics of prison populations to build his case. But none of the Enron executives are in prison, nor are likely to be. Do we exclude them from genetic analysis to unravel what genes lead us to do? This book will go far in inflaming the already anti-scientific attitude prevalent in North American schools. Statements such as "science is not generally accurate" and "scientific statements are routinely falsified" [p. 279] aren't likely to entice anyone into the scientific fold. Students will not be encouraged to enter science disciplines when they're told "it is no easier to get the average scientist to accept responsibility than it is to get the average four-year-old to accept responsibility. After all, Marks is a scientist himself, his statements must be valid. We must assume, it is supposed, that he and Lewontin stand alone by having donned the mantle of responsibility. Yet his book is permeated with complaints that statements made by other scientists have been uncritically accepted. Marks owes the scientific community an apology. More importantly, he owes every young person interested in science an apology for describing them as likely to become irresponsible children instead of aspiring grown-ups. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating: 
Summary: A good book with ideas which need to be expressed now.
Review: Despite the author's raging anger and at times over the top invective, this is a very important book that at once demystifies genetic science and shows how genetic theories of human behavior have always been subject to cultural influence and in most cases in the absence of any hard evidence. Equipped with an arsenal of facts and historical case studies, Marks passionately warns us about the misuses of science. This is not to say he is any way anti-science or " Postmodern" as the armchair Sociobiologist Steven Haines implies. Opening on the offensive with a discussion on the genetic similarity between apes and humans Marks shows the similarity to be merely frivolous when we consider the we also share half our genes with fish and about a third with daffodils Moving right along Marks addresses issues as diverse as the arbitrary nature of classifications, essentialism, not to mention worldview and religion. We learn that the classificatory schemes of the saintly Linneus perhaps had more to do with the man's views on breast-feeding that on
" how things are in selves" We also get a glimpse of how essentialist views of man have their origins in folk knowledge and societal prejudice which inevitability creeps into the conclusions we draw from empirical data. While Marks can be overly critical of his field and his colleagues in general, it is a necessary antidote to the appalling bile and misinformation reported in the popular press in the name of science; which more often than not is accepted uncritically and taken as gospel in the pop science community. From reports of the " Gay gene" to the genetic basis of female coyness and racial theories of intelligence, Marks shows there is simply no experimental evidence for any of these claims, and when there is, it is statistically spurious. Simply interpreting social and psychological data in light of evolutionary theory and drawing vague inferences from physiology is not science. And Marks exposes it, again and again. This is Speculation and myth and the public should be under no obligation to take it as established science.
Rating:
Summary: human nature, demarcation problem and culture meet genes
Review: First a couple of structural observations before i look at the content.
It has the organization and transitional structure between chapters of independent essays written for other venues and later shaped into a book. I do not know this for a fact, but the absence of a strong theme which ties the chapters together into a coherent structured book is a hint at it's origin. This lack of coherency as a whole is the main reason i rated it a 4 and not a 5.
Second, i bought the book based on reviews and word of mouth recommendations that were wrong about the themes of the book. I thought it was going to be about what makes chimps and humans different. What it is, is an introduction to anthropologic genetics, behavioral genetics, simply the relationship of genetics to human nature. What i thought was the topic of the book is in fact the issue of chapter 11, titled "is blood so really damn thick?". However it is opposed to sociobiology(evolutionary psychology) in a very consistent manner , so don't confuse the two.
In fact, i was mildly disappointed at this organization and what i thought was a misleading advertising, so much so that i put down the book in chapter 4 and it sank to the bottom of the to-be-read pile for several weeks. This was in addition to what seemed like an eternity spent talking about race. Sadly so because the 6th chapter "folk heredity" is very good on explaining several interesting and illuminating genetic principles:taxonomism, racism, hereditarianism, essentialism(i would have started with chapter 6 if i had known). Simply put i gave up too quickly, don't you make the same mistake. Likewise, since the chapters are not sequential in any particular learning curve way, you can jump and skip around in a manner usually reserved for not-technical non-scientific works, pick and choose what interests you, i expect that you will finish the book as i did, interested and stimulated in my thinking about these important issues. So after this, what is the common threads that bring the author to create this book? One, is the demarcation problem in science(the author does not however use this philosophic term), that is the question of what is science versus what is not science and two what separates good science from poor. In the author's own words: "We now recognize the need to define the boundaries of science in order to distinguish the authoritative voice of scientists speaking as scientists from the voice of scientists speaking as citizens."pg 94 He uses the term folk heredity, folk science, folk beliefs consistently to separate the science from the common sense general understanding of people. Using folk heredity as others would the term pseudoscience or unscientific common sense. Along with the demarcation problem he is primarily concerned with the effects of science, with the humanistic concerns for people and how that is subverted or ignored by people claiming to be doing science. This is the topic of chapter 9 "a human gene museum?" where he tackles several sacred cows in science related to the human genome project and in chapter 10 "identity and descent" he tackles kennewick man and the controversy there. This principle is simply that science has as it's ultimate goal the betterment of human lives, and if the means to get there, the technics of science begin to subvert these humanistic goals then scientists better reexamine what they are doing and/or how they are doing it. The third theme that binds the essays together is the relationship of the anthropology to the genetics in the science of anthropological genetics. To this end several of the beginning chapters, culminating with chapter 6 "folk heredity"(which i feel is the best chapter in the book) deal with the issue of race and genetics. The take home message is pretty simple, race is a cultural abstraction, a societal construction that has no basis in genetics. The variability of characteristics is larger within then it is between these racial groupings. but it takes several chapters to convince the reader that this long held, cherished view of human diversity is in fact not genetic but cultural, not nature but nuture. Something else that solidifies and holds together the book is the author's passion for science. He protects it when it is under unjustified attack from outside, or being subverted from the inside and criticizes it when it doesn't live up to the high ideals that it proposes. this coupled with the interesting way he writes is reason enough to get the book and read a few of the chapters. He is consistent, plain speaking, mildly addictive, and with a surprise on every page with who he agrees with and who he doesn't. Well worth the time to get to understand an interesting and passionate man who writes about current scientific events with an eye to principles and humanistic goals that is refreshing and important, and unfortunately uncommon in the field.
Rating:
Summary: Helpful
Review: For about two decades we have been hearing that chimpanzees and humans own 98% of their genetic identity. And for the past few years biological determinism seems to be making a comeback. If crude efforts like "The Bell Curve" are properly dismissed, we still find out that everything from alcoholism to homosexuality is determined by genes. News reports argue that by looking at chimpanzees we can find the truth about our own agressive natures. At the same time we hear about identical twins separated at birth, who are in the same professions, have wives and dogs with the same names, and even have the same styled moustaches. Surely, this is proof of the power of nature. Well, actually no, and it is the value of this book that it shows the weaknesses of this vulgar Darwinism. The book is somewhat repetitive, and readers may find its invocations of eugenics and Social Darwinism both old news and somewhat unnuanced. But in clear accessible language Marks shows the weaknesses of the above propositions. For a start, the famous homosexuality study, which had a number of weaknesses Marks points out, stated that only 5% of whether one was a homosexual could be explained by genetics. This makes sense, since homosexuality in human societies varies widely, being endemic in some societies at some stages in life (like Classical Rome and Greece) to be harshly repressed in others. Likewise the 98% figure is based on one of a variety of ways of measuring our genetic identity, and Marks points out that it was manipulated in such a way so that chimpanzees would appear closer to us than to gorillas. Obviously we and chimpanzees are very close genetically, but how can we tell whether a trait in chimpanzees explains an aspect of human society? The possibilities are that a) it does reflect a common inherent trait of both species b) it reflects a common trait that humans evolved out of or c) it reflects a trait that evolved in chimpanzees after they differentiated from our ancestors. We cannot simply tell by just looking, and without a genetic explanation. As for the identical twins, think about it a little more closely. How could the choice of one's profession, the shape of one's moustache, the name we give our dog, or the name of the person who decides to marry us, possibly be genetically determined. It is too good to be true, and it usually is (more likely the reason is sureptitious contact between the "separated" twins.) Marks goes on to provide many other interesting asides, such as why black athletes are not "genetically" superior to others. He discusses the strange tale of "Kennewick Man" reported in the media as a Caucasian skeleton that American Indians politically correctly wanted to take away from the scientists who wanted to study it and bury it so it would not refute their beliefs that they were in America first. Marks points out a whole list of problems with this account, starting with the important fact that you cannot tell that a skeleton is "Caucasian" from examining it, and then pointing out a number of other non-sequiturs the scientists used to keep the skeleton from its legal owners. Marks also provides good reasons not to panic over cloning, as well as good reasons not to give apes human rights (simple answer; they're not human). He also points out the long history of "projection" in which scientists saw their own societies reflected in their studies of primates. For people who know little about molecular anthropology, Marks provides a helpful introduction.
Rating:
Summary: Helpful
Review: For about two decades we have been hearing that chimpanzees and humans own 98% of their genetic identity. And for the past few years biological determinism seems to be making a comeback. If crude efforts like "The Bell Curve" are properly dismissed, we still find out that everything from alcoholism to homosexuality is determined by genes. News reports argue that by looking at chimpanzees we can find the truth about our own agressive natures. At the same time we hear about identical twins separated at birth, who are in the same professions, have wives and dogs with the same names, and even have the same styled moustaches. Surely, this is proof of the power of nature. Well, actually no, and it is the value of this book that it shows the weaknesses of this vulgar Darwinism. The book is somewhat repetitive, and readers may find its invocations of eugenics and Social Darwinism both old news and somewhat unnuanced. But in clear accessible language Marks shows the weaknesses of the above propositions. For a start, the famous homosexuality study, which had a number of weaknesses Marks points out, stated that only 5% of whether one was a homosexual could be explained by genetics. This makes sense, since homosexuality in human societies varies widely, being endemic in some societies at some stages in life (like Classical Rome and Greece) to be harshly repressed in others. Likewise the 98% figure is based on one of a variety of ways of measuring our genetic identity, and Marks points out that it was manipulated in such a way so that chimpanzees would appear closer to us than to gorillas. Obviously we and chimpanzees are very close genetically, but how can we tell whether a trait in chimpanzees explains an aspect of human society? The possibilities are that a) it does reflect a common inherent trait of both species b) it reflects a common trait that humans evolved out of or c) it reflects a trait that evolved in chimpanzees after they differentiated from our ancestors. We cannot simply tell by just looking, and without a genetic explanation. As for the identical twins, think about it a little more closely. How could the choice of one's profession, the shape of one's moustache, the name we give our dog, or the name of the person who decides to marry us, possibly be genetically determined. It is too good to be true, and it usually is (more likely the reason is sureptitious contact between the "separated" twins.) Marks goes on to provide many other interesting asides, such as why black athletes are not "genetically" superior to others. He discusses the strange tale of "Kennewick Man" reported in the media as a Caucasian skeleton that American Indians politically correctly wanted to take away from the scientists who wanted to study it and bury it so it would not refute their beliefs that they were in America first. Marks points out a whole list of problems with this account, starting with the important fact that you cannot tell that a skeleton is "Caucasian" from examining it, and then pointing out a number of other non-sequiturs the scientists used to keep the skeleton from its legal owners. Marks also provides good reasons not to panic over cloning, as well as good reasons not to give apes human rights (simple answer; they're not human). He also points out the long history of "projection" in which scientists saw their own societies reflected in their studies of primates. For people who know little about molecular anthropology, Marks provides a helpful introduction.
Rating:
Summary: refreshing point of view
Review: For everyone tired of hearing that because apes do a certain thing, that thing must be "natural" to humans, this book is very refreshing. The style is very entertaining, and it explains concepts of genetics in an engaging way. It also discusses the dangers and limitations of science, and exposes molecular biologists who publish their results in popular magazines before their work is accepted to peer-reviewed journals. Marks argues emphatically for humane treatment of chimpanzees and other primates, but not for giving them human rights. Why? Because they are not human. As Marks says, we can't expect to send a chimp to jail for killing another chimp. Marks is of the perspective that human culture is the strongest force governing our behavior, not genetics.
Rating:
Summary: refreshing point of view
Review: For everyone tired of hearing that because apes do a certain thing, that thing must be "natural" to humans, this book is very refreshing. The style is very entertaining, and it explains concepts of genetics in an engaging way. It also discusses the dangers and limitations of science, and exposes molecular biologists who publish their results in popular magazines before their work is accepted to peer-reviewed journals. Marks argues emphatically for humane treatment of chimpanzees and other primates, but not for giving them human rights. Why? Because they are not human. As Marks says, we can't expect to send a chimp to jail for killing another chimp. Marks is of the perspective that human culture is the strongest force governing our behavior, not genetics.
Rating: 
Summary: is Marks really a YEC?
Review: His position on creationism is far too sympathetic. These almost pathological liars at ICR (and other places like it) go around constantly misquoting science trying to deceive the public into believing their pointless cause. They deserve no understanding.
| 
