1138

With the publication of E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology, applications of the concepts of evolutionary genetics to human behavior were controversial. The intensity of the debate stemmed from false impressions that sociobiological approaches resembled previously discredited pseudoscientific movements such as social Darwinism, biological determinism, and eugenics, all of which have been used as rationales for racism and discrimination. However, sociobiology is an objective science, questions of “what is” should not be conflated with questions of “what ought to be.” For example, we can demonstrate the genetic basis of sexual dimorphism in body size and muscle mass in humans, and we can compare this dimorphism with that in other mammals. However, any attempt to use such data as a political or legal defense for the cultural practice of polygamy would not be science and should not be confused with science.

The fact that our biochemistry, our cell biology, physiology, and anatomy are shaped by our genes is beyond argument. However, it is also clear that these genetically shaped characteristics are also influenced by factors such as environment, nutrition, social interactions, and culture. Why should it be different for behavior? Studies of identical twins reared apart have produced evidence for inheritance of uncanny similarities in behavioral propensities. Studies of isolated human cultures around the world have also revealed remarkable similarities in social organization. None of these studies, however, would challenge the dominant role of learning and culture in the shaping of human behavior.