Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History (Foundations of Human Behavior)

Rating:
Summary: Very clear. No indepth knowledge of genetics required.
Review: I read this book while taking a correspondence course in physical anthropology from Univ. of Cal. at Berkeley. It is a textbook for a course on biodiversity.

The book is about 280 pages and is subtitled genes, race and history. It has 14 chapters. The book's major theme is how culture and science have interacted around the issue of race.

Marks is both an anthropologist and a biologist, so the book presents a clear and thorough explanation of genetics in the context of how Western culture has chosen to interpret--and misinterpret--human differences.

It was the clearest, most enjoyable and thorough inquiry into the idea of race I have ever read. It greatly changed how I view human biodiversity.

Rating:
Summary: A Broadbased View of Human Diversity
Review: This book is excellent introduction to the thorny topic of human biodiversity. The book's real strength lies in the fact that Marks brings in historical material which illuminates the ideological underpinnings of work on human diversity. Dr. Marks, at the time this book was written was a visiting professor at UC/Berkeley. He had studied anthropology at the University of Arizona and genetics at UC/Davis. According to a note on the copyright page he is known for his work in molecular anthropology. The book's 14 chapters take an extremely broad view of human diversity, both cultural and biological, and of the attempts to understand and explain that diversity. The book covers the history of anthropology's attempts to understand human biodiversity, the evolution of primates, the eugenics movement, a critique of the biological race concept, patterns of human variation - both phenotypic and genotypic, the nature and function of human variation, the role of human variation in health and disease and a critique of hereditarian theory. An appendix discusses DNA structure and function. The chapters are generally well written and referenced. The book is written for an academic audience or at least a reader with a strong foundation in biology. I found the critique of the biological race concept to be the most lucid and well thought out one that I have ever read. Marks points out that a division of humans into three or four primordial races seems to ignore the long history of human intermingling. Either there has always been intermingling among humans - in which case the very concept of biologically separated races is wrong from the start - or intermingling is a more recent phenomenon in which case race may have been relevant in the past but no longer is. Marks points out that the three major races identified in the US - White, Black and Asian - correspond to the three major immigrant groups in US history - from Europe, Western Africa and Eastern Asia. [I note that he did not discuss Native Americans.] There is an excellent discussion of the history of race thinking as it was applied to the ABO blood groups. This makes palpable the argument that within-race diversity is much greater than between-race diversity. Marks devotes a fair amount of time to discussing how cultural values impact on scientific work. This is illustrated by numerous examples, many drawn from a critique of the eugenics movement. It is difficult, however, to figure out what he thinks we should do about the fact that science is not "value neutral." He appears to suggest that scientists be better schooled in the humanities and pay more attention to the social implications of their work. It is unclear to me, however, that the problem with eugenics was that the scientists were unschooled in the humanities and unmindful to the social implications of their policies. Could one not criticize Marks for simply displaying his own values when he writes, for instance that: "The resolution of the problem of racism is not to deny group differences, which obviously exist; nor to deny the human urge to associate with like-minded people, which is undeniably strong; but to ensure that the diverse groups of people in contemporary society are given equal access to resources and opportunities. In other words, to assure that individuals are judged as individuals, and not as group members. The opportunity for self-improvement is vital to a free and cosmopolitan society, and the possibility to take advantage of it must be independent of group considerations." (p. 168)? How does Marks assure himself that these values of his do not subvert his scientific studies? The question is particularly troubling because many of the concepts surrounding work on human diversity - such as "innate ability" - are loaded with social judgements. Is innate ability a static thing? Should society reward provide greater rewards to people with greater innate ability? Marks repeatedly makes the observation that studies of humans are different than studies of animals, because there are practical implications to the results of studies on humans. But his book amply demonstrates how studies on animals - such as studies on "rape" in scorpionflies - have also been misused to draw conclusions about humans. One could easily argue that all science is inevitably based on values. The book appears to be a collection of lectures and unfortunately there is a fair amount of repetition. The book might have been stronger had it developed one central thesis. Nonetheless I found this to be a clearly written and very informative book.

Rating:
Summary: Bankruptcy in the field of social science.
Review: This book is very similar to Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" except it attacks eugenics more straightforwardly and is even more shameless; just a series of lies and half-truths. But first, let me say that the eugenics movement at the turn of the century did have two fundamental stumbling blocks: a belief in simple Mendelian principles of heredity, and a belief in class and elitism. Until universal education finally took hold in only the last few decades, where bright students are encouraged to get advanced degrees, elitism or a sense of aristocracy and moral certitude was part culture. But culture changes. So this book, like Gould's, uses old arguments against new concepts that are no longer relevant.

What is even more strange however, is that almost every diatribe against understanding group differences and investigating why and how humans behave has now been turned around. At one time, like folk medicine, folk eugenics was in fact largely pseudoscience in that doctrine drove the science without adequate academic peer review or oversight. But now, the opposite is occurring. The radical egalitarians, those die-hard Marxists that reject science they do not like, are attacking academically reviewed work without providing any evidence to the contrary. This is how he describes pseudoscience, and it is in fact what this book is all about. Half-truths and accusations against behavior genetics and evolutionary psychology, fields that have now matured and are solidly in the mainstream. And social scientists? Still floundering around trying to make sense of failed programs and broken promises. They accuse institutional racism for poverty but they provide no proof or evidence. They claim that redistribution of wealth will make everyone equally smart without one study to show that this is possible. The Gouldian Marxists have now become the Pseudoscientists, fighting a rear-guard defense by making claims and accusations that are clearly incorrect.

This book was written in 1995, but it reads like it was written in 1970. The author has conveniently ignored all of the most recent research in human evolution, sociobiology, and differential psychology. It is as if, in order to make his claims seem credible, he had no way of addressing the scientific progress made the last thirty years. And just over the last five years the few caveats he may have had about such matters as the correlation of brain size to intelligence have been laid to rest. Numerous recent studies from around the world using sophisticated MRI methods have confirmed that intelligence does correlate with brain size, and is different for men and women for different parts of the brain. This is just one example of the obfuscation conjured up in this book.

So is it good reading? By all means. Existing Marxists will have their prejudices reinforced, while those of us who are unabashed empiricists can take pleasure in the hackneyed attempts at dislodging good solid science. That is, it was for me a pleasure to read because on almost every page, the arguments against eugenics could be turned around against the radical environmentalists. It is similar to an atheist reading the bible to confirm, chapter after chapter, the inconsistencies and absurdities of the text to reaffirm their position.

Rating:
Summary: Bankruptcy in the field of social science.
Review: This book is very similar to Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" except it attacks eugenics more straightforwardly and is even more shameless; just a series of lies and half-truths. But first, let me say that the eugenics movement at the turn of the century did have two fundamental stumbling blocks: a belief in simple Mendelian principles of heredity, and a belief in class and elitism. Until universal education finally took hold in only the last few decades, where bright students are encouraged to get advanced degrees, elitism or a sense of aristocracy and moral certitude was part culture. But culture changes. So this book, like Gould's, uses old arguments against new concepts that are no longer relevant.

What is even more strange however, is that almost every diatribe against understanding group differences and investigating why and how humans behave has now been turned around. At one time, like folk medicine, folk eugenics was in fact largely pseudoscience in that doctrine drove the science without adequate academic peer review or oversight. But now, the opposite is occurring. The radical egalitarians, those die-hard Marxists that reject science they do not like, are attacking academically reviewed work without providing any evidence to the contrary. This is how he describes pseudoscience, and it is in fact what this book is all about. Half-truths and accusations against behavior genetics and evolutionary psychology, fields that have now matured and are solidly in the mainstream. And social scientists? Still floundering around trying to make sense of failed programs and broken promises. They accuse institutional racism for poverty but they provide no proof or evidence. They claim that redistribution of wealth will make everyone equally smart without one study to show that this is possible. The Gouldian Marxists have now become the Pseudoscientists, fighting a rear-guard defense by making claims and accusations that are clearly incorrect.

This book was written in 1995, but it reads like it was written in 1970. The author has conveniently ignored all of the most recent research in human evolution, sociobiology, and differential psychology. It is as if, in order to make his claims seem credible, he had no way of addressing the scientific progress made the last thirty years. And just over the last five years the few caveats he may have had about such matters as the correlation of brain size to intelligence have been laid to rest. Numerous recent studies from around the world using sophisticated MRI methods have confirmed that intelligence does correlate with brain size, and is different for men and women for different parts of the brain. This is just one example of the obfuscation conjured up in this book.

So is it good reading? By all means. Existing Marxists will have their prejudices reinforced, while those of us who are unabashed empiricists can take pleasure in the hackneyed attempts at dislodging good solid science. That is, it was for me a pleasure to read because on almost every page, the arguments against eugenics could be turned around against the radical environmentalists. It is similar to an atheist reading the bible to confirm, chapter after chapter, the inconsistencies and absurdities of the text to reaffirm their position.