What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee : Apes, People, and Their Genes

Rating:
Summary: A wedge project?
Review: I have no evidence that this is an ICR "wedge" project, but it fits so well. Acknowledgements to and citation of Phillip Johnson; a sustained attack on the value and ethics of science and scientists; numerous references to unnamed scientists that want to destroy "the meaning in people's lives"; sympathy towards evolutionists; smearing and innuendo..,. Yet at the same time he professes his own commitment to science, so the ICR can cite him as a "scientist exposing the evils of science".

I was also amused that of the four books citing this one, three are Jeff Herman's notorious "how to get published" infomercials for scam artists.

Rating:
Summary: Book is full of doubletalk
Review: Like when Marks tries to doubletalk his way out of admitting black people are usually superior physically to people of other races. What did that line about missing a fast white guy somewhere mean (among other double-talk statements)? Also, he gets nearly idiotic when he talks about how Kennewick (sp?) Man is sacred to Indians and their native beliefs. Oh, so the fossil shouldn't be genetically studied cause doing so will offend the Indian god of the moon? Or something like that? Marks native americans believed in gods that don't exist. Understand!

Rating:
Summary: Politicized Science
Review: Marks book is not about science in any real sense. It is about politics. Over the course of his examination of biological incursions into anthropology, ranging from sociobiology to genetic testing of ancient skeletons, the only unifying theme to the book is that any conclusion that does not support progressive causes must be wrong and that any research that might hurt someone's feelings should not be attempted. Marks states both tenets explicitly several times.

That is not to say that all of his discussions are bad. If you leave out the irrational political diatribes, his accounts of some of the conclusions of sociobiology, for example, are spot on. His discussion of sociobiology in general, however, is based wholly on his beliefs about the political motivations of sociobiologists.

He does not provide logical arguments against most of his targets, but rather uses examples that seem to be chosen for their ability to offend a modern audience without regard to their relevance. Nazi Germany is invoked continuously, for example, although modern work is not derived from 1930's and 40's continental scholarship. He also misrepresents not only the motivations but also the results and theses of other researchers with the express intent of comparing them to the Nazis. The reader is often left with the impression that Marks bases his discussion on hearsay instead of studying the work of the scientists whose work he examines.

This is why the tone of this book often makes it difficult to finish a section.

Marks inadvertently makes a good case for not listing anthropology among the sciences. Although he has great pretensions for the field--it is supposed to be both a link between the modern and the pre-modern worlds and a link between the sciences and the humanities, while remaining itself a science--, he defines anthropology politically. Its purpose is to help the oppressed, foreign and domestic, deal with their exploiters. Thus, anthropologist's conclusions must face a political test to be considered correct (or, "convincing," as he likes to put it). Any field so construed is not science; any anthropologist following his advice would not be a scientist.

Marks believes, and restates often, that science should be Hippocratic. All science should look at what possible harm, including psychic harm, a discovery could do before the inception of an experimental program. Some knowledge is bad knowledge.

Marks justifies his politicized stance childishly. To paraphrase, "they (e.g., the Nazis) politicized anthropology first, so I can, too."

He has similarly irrational restrictive requirements on experiments. Experiments that wouldn't yield enough data to be conclusive should begin. For experimental sciences physics, perhaps, this might be a good rule, but for forensic sciences like astronomy and biology this would be devastating. Data needs to be added as it comes in.

If you would like a good discussion of the issues Marks addresses, such as human intelligence, crime, and paleoanthropology, you should go elsewhere. If you would like some debating points that occasionally reference scientific work, then you should read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Politicized Science
Review: Marks book is not about science in any real sense. It is about politics. Over the course of his examination of biological incursions into anthropology, ranging from sociobiology to genetic testing of ancient skeletons, the only unifying theme to the book is that any conclusion that does not support progressive causes must be wrong and that any research that might hurt someone's feelings should not be attempted. Marks states both tenets explicitly several times.

That is not to say that all of his discussions are bad. If you leave out the irrational political diatribes, his accounts of some of the conclusions of sociobiology, for example, are spot on. His discussion of sociobiology in general, however, is based wholly on his beliefs about the political motivations of sociobiologists.

He does not provide logical arguments against most of his targets, but rather uses examples that seem to be chosen for their ability to offend a modern audience without regard to their relevance. Nazi Germany is invoked continuously, for example, although modern work is not derived from 1930's and 40's continental scholarship. He also misrepresents not only the motivations but also the results and theses of other researchers with the express intent of comparing them to the Nazis. The reader is often left with the impression that Marks bases his discussion on hearsay instead of studying the work of the scientists whose work he examines.

This is why the tone of this book often makes it difficult to finish a section.

Marks inadvertently makes a good case for not listing anthropology among the sciences. Although he has great pretensions for the field--it is supposed to be both a link between the modern and the pre-modern worlds and a link between the sciences and the humanities, while remaining itself a science--, he defines anthropology politically. Its purpose is to help the oppressed, foreign and domestic, deal with their exploiters. Thus, anthropologist's conclusions must face a political test to be considered correct (or, "convincing," as he likes to put it). Any field so construed is not science; any anthropologist following his advice would not be a scientist.

Marks believes, and restates often, that science should be Hippocratic. All science should look at what possible harm, including psychic harm, a discovery could do before the inception of an experimental program. Some knowledge is bad knowledge.

Marks justifies his politicized stance childishly. To paraphrase, "they (e.g., the Nazis) politicized anthropology first, so I can, too."

He has similarly irrational restrictive requirements on experiments. Experiments that wouldn't yield enough data to be conclusive should begin. For experimental sciences physics, perhaps, this might be a good rule, but for forensic sciences like astronomy and biology this would be devastating. Data needs to be added as it comes in.

If you would like a good discussion of the issues Marks addresses, such as human intelligence, crime, and paleoanthropology, you should go elsewhere. If you would like some debating points that occasionally reference scientific work, then you should read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Easy to Dismiss, but very Important
Review: The easiest thing to do about Marks' work is to dismiss it. Maybe we can simply state that herein lies that 'lefty pinko commie propaganda' that tries hopelessly to be 'PC.' And that's all she wrote! But I am afraid it is not so simple...

Jonathan Marks is writing about _my_ field. I have done some similar work. He is fighting against a popular old force, which tries to ignore not only cultural influence, but also ecological and political, and other influences.

Marks is an expert in his field, and this is very evident. It is interesting that one of the reviewers of this book, Mr. Haines, cites research from past ten years as diminishing to this book. I would like to see this research, not published in a newspaper, please. Genetic determinism, for all its promises, has _failed_ to live up to its expectations. It tries to solve _grand_ answers, and this is pretty hard. Marks is right to question evolutionary psychology, as the field has brought almost _nothing_ but the so-called 'just-so' stories. This is not science, this is myth. And Marks exposes it, as he should. I am also at a loss to observe how Marks wants no Darwinist baggage. This is false; he notes in his work that these explanations can contribute--but again, grand theories based on this kind of 'science' avoid about 150 years of anthropology, which has gone through many of the same pitfalls, by the way.

He is right to question the silliness of invoking the 98% chimpanzee argument, as it is a ridiculous one. He is right to note that folk knowledge manages to mingle in with what is supposed to be science. This is easily the best part of the book, and the dripping sarcasm and the molten anger with which Marks writes is immensely entertaining. However, it is also tragic to observe.

While I do not usually attack a particular Amazon review, I will point that Mr. Haines would benefit from a second reading of the book. Science is generally inaccurate in behavioral sciences (but also elsewhere): this is a simple truth, not an extreme claim. It is also _not_ an attack on science. As a matter of fact, as Marks points out rightly, science is accurate _OVER TIME_, but may be hopelessly misguided sometimes even in the long term. IF this was not the case, there would be no need for new paradigms; but, these do happen, I am afraid. This book is in no way trying to disparage science. If this was the case, Marks would not continue his work. But let me stress this: Marks simply notes that scientists should not put their noses where there is no place for them, or where scientific truth cannot be derived. I do not quite understand why this is a preposterous claim.

Linneus is demonized?! No, Marks simply notes the amount of folk knowledge inherited in this supposedly natural classifying system--what is found 'out there,' in nature. This is a clear point, not demonization. He is showing the arbitrary nature of classification. EVERY biologist should know this, but doesn't. Nor did I, before I got my MA in Physical Anthropology after studying Biology as an undergrad

Particularly, I would like to reply to this comment: "[i]nability to 'get it all right the first time' is inherent in the process. It accomplishes little to portray the process as invalid." Marks _does not_ expect science to get it right the first time. As a matter of fact, a careful reading of his book will indicate that he does not want genetics to fall into the same trap for the _SECOND_ time. Furthermore, far from arguing for abandonment of genetics as a whole, Marks asks geneticists to stop making grand claims when small results are observed: if that is not reasonable I am not sure what is.

Overall, Marks has presented an immensely readable work. Not everyone is going to like it, especially sociobiologists. There is actually nothing terribly revolutionary here. However, Marks' prose and his dripping sarcasm make this a book to read. I have yet to see how it is post-Modern or deconstructionist, for that matter. Marks is interested in science, but wants to see that it does not make mistakes it has so often made in the past. Is that really so controversial?

Rating:
Summary: Easy to Dismiss, but very Important
Review: The easiest thing to do about Marks' work is to dismiss it. Maybe we can simply state that herein lies that 'lefty pinko commie propaganda' that tries hopelessly to be 'PC.' And that's all she wrote! But I am afraid it is not so simple...

Jonathan Marks is writing about _my_ field. I have done some similar work. He is fighting against a popular old force, which tries to ignore not only cultural influence, but also ecological and political, and other influences.

Marks is an expert in his field, and this is very evident. It is interesting that one of the reviewers of this book, Mr. Haines, cites research from past ten years as diminishing to this book. I would like to see this research, not published in a newspaper, please. Genetic determinism, for all its promises, has _failed_ to live up to its expectations. It tries to solve _grand_ answers, and this is pretty hard. Marks is right to question evolutionary psychology, as the field has brought almost _nothing_ but the so-called 'just-so' stories. This is not science, this is myth. And Marks exposes it, as he should. I am also at a loss to observe how Marks wants no Darwinist baggage. This is false; he notes in his work that these explanations can contribute--but again, grand theories based on this kind of 'science' avoid about 150 years of anthropology, which has gone through many of the same pitfalls, by the way.

He is right to question the silliness of invoking the 98% chimpanzee argument, as it is a ridiculous one. He is right to note that folk knowledge manages to mingle in with what is supposed to be science. This is easily the best part of the book, and the dripping sarcasm and the molten anger with which Marks writes is immensely entertaining. However, it is also tragic to observe.

While I do not usually attack a particular Amazon review, I will point that Mr. Haines would benefit from a second reading of the book. Science is generally inaccurate in behavioral sciences (but also elsewhere): this is a simple truth, not an extreme claim. It is also _not_ an attack on science. As a matter of fact, as Marks points out rightly, science is accurate _OVER TIME_, but may be hopelessly misguided sometimes even in the long term. IF this was not the case, there would be no need for new paradigms; but, these do happen, I am afraid. This book is in no way trying to disparage science. If this was the case, Marks would not continue his work. But let me stress this: Marks simply notes that scientists should not put their noses where there is no place for them, or where scientific truth cannot be derived. I do not quite understand why this is a preposterous claim.

Linneus is demonized?! No, Marks simply notes the amount of folk knowledge inherited in this supposedly natural classifying system--what is found 'out there,' in nature. This is a clear point, not demonization. He is showing the arbitrary nature of classification. EVERY biologist should know this, but doesn't. Nor did I, before I got my MA in Physical Anthropology after studying Biology as an undergrad

Particularly, I would like to reply to this comment: "[i]nability to 'get it all right the first time' is inherent in the process. It accomplishes little to portray the process as invalid." Marks _does not_ expect science to get it right the first time. As a matter of fact, a careful reading of his book will indicate that he does not want genetics to fall into the same trap for the _SECOND_ time. Furthermore, far from arguing for abandonment of genetics as a whole, Marks asks geneticists to stop making grand claims when small results are observed: if that is not reasonable I am not sure what is.

Overall, Marks has presented an immensely readable work. Not everyone is going to like it, especially sociobiologists. There is actually nothing terribly revolutionary here. However, Marks' prose and his dripping sarcasm make this a book to read. I have yet to see how it is post-Modern or deconstructionist, for that matter. Marks is interested in science, but wants to see that it does not make mistakes it has so often made in the past. Is that really so controversial?

Rating:
Summary: 98% Chimp...that is interesting...
Review: The overwhelming similarity of human to ape genes is one of the best-known facts of modern genetic science. But what does this similarity mean? Does it, as many have suggested, have profound implications for understanding human nature? Well-known molecular anthropologist Jonathan Marks uses the human-versus-ape controversy as a jumping-off point for a radical reassessment of a range of provocative issues - from the role of science in society to racism, animal rights, and cloning. Full of interesting facts, fascinating personalities, and vivid examples that capture times, places, and controversies, this book explains and demystifies human genetic science - showing ultimately how it has always been subject to social and political influences and teaching us how to think critically about its modern findings

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: The really interesting take on Mark's approach to science is his discussion of the classification of Neandertals as either a species in their own right or a subspecies. Firstly, he is confused and confusing. On the one hand he denies the possibility of ever providing a definitive answer to this question ("Not only don't we know, but we cannot know" he says highlighting `cannot' in italics!- pg.97) and on the other he spends the last paragraph of the section (p.99) trying to persuade us of a particular view - the subspecies argument - based on new techniques. If I had a professor like this I wouldn't be having lunch with him (pg.176). Secondly, he gives the most awful reason for opting for one view over the other: the bad science of some of his molecular biological colleagues. Rather than counter the bad science with good science we are told that "its probably a good idea to keep Neandertals safely at the subspecies level". This is simply appaling.

But maybe there is another reason for Marks to take this approach. If, au contraire, Neandertals are in fact Homo neanderthalensis (as suggested by Gould in his recent great book pg. 910) and if just 40,000 years ago there were three human species walking this planet of ours, then Mark's discussion of the Great Ape Project takes on a different hue. I am not suggesting that these species were great apes. What I am asking is whether Marks would have thought them suitable candidates for `human rights'. It is hard to know.

Of course, for Marks, these sorts of questions are conjectural because, in fact, we only have one human species on the planet and it is to that species that human rights apply. Marks's bee is, that "we can't even guarantee human rights to humans" so we shouldn't even be talking about extending those rights to great apes. Hmmm... Surely, Professor Marks, along the lines of the argument that you made about the political usefulness of keeping Neandertals as a subspecies an equally compelling argument could be made to extend those rights to great apes so that the lack of their actual application to humans becomes a matter of even greater shame to those regimes that dont!

All that said, however, this book should be read because of its very important discussion of human variation.

Rating:
Summary: What it Means to be 98 Percent Chimpanzee
Review: What it Means to by 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes written by Jonathan Marks is a book with razor-like sharpness and a powerful critique of primatology, comparative anatomy, and molecular anthropology.

This book is a radical reassessment of science as we know it, showing ultimately how it has always been subject to social and political influences and teaching us how to think critically about modern findings. The author does some superb teaching spiced with witty prose making for a rather lively read.

There is some powerful critiquing of reductionist claims about genetics, human behavior, cognitive abilities and racial differences. Reading this book will shed some light on the rather new science called molecular genetics. The author does stray too far and makes the book highly readable and somewhat easy to understand. You may not agree fully with the author's approach, but understanding of the science of human evolution requires an uncluttered mind... an open mind.

This book covers areas of interest ranging from the differences between apes and humans to the biological and behavioral variations expressed in the human species. All in all, this book can and probably will stir up contraversy as the author tries to equate the common ancestry of humans and daffodils, not to mention similarities with the common fruit fly.

Rating:
Summary: Too much spin, too much bias
Review: While I agree with nearly everything the previous reviewer has to say about this book, I think that the author's bias damages the value so that it's really not a "five star" work. Marks is from the Lewontin-left school, and will not accept that we can learn anything about human behavior from animal studies, no matter how close the animal. His answer to the question implicit in his title would be essentially "nothing." He makes fun of the closeness of human and chimp DNA by comparing it to the purity of Ivory Soap, "99 44/100ths." And he takes pot-shots at Sociobiology and its allied fields at every possible opportunity. ... From my point of view, the Lewontin camp is willing to distort the facts to fit their political ideas in a completely shameless fashion.

..

I'm afraid that I consider Marks's book, "What it means..." to be a big waste of time.