I try to read widely so I not only can plug my knowledge of
genetics into the liberal arts, but into unconventional ways others see
science. One recurrent theme, as old as
the history of biology is the idea of holism.
It is an outlook shared by those calling it vitalism, elan vital,
enteleche, or mneme. More modern terms, like Gaia and systems theory, have been
introduced in the last half of the twentieth century. They share a belief summed up in the popular
phrase “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Opposed to this outlook are a variety of
terms used by scientists who oppose holism.
They call themselves mechanists or reductionists or in an older
terminology, positivists. What they
share in common is a belief that the material (non-supernatural) world can be
analyzed into its components by scientific methods using experimentation and
new technologies. Their approach has
given us the complex composition of atoms worked out by physicists, the
combinatorial components of atoms in molecules worked out by chemists, the germ
theory of disease, worked out by microbiologists, and the theory of the gene
worked out by biologists.
The danger
of reductionism in the life sciences, its opponents claim, is its tendency to
oversimplify how life works or how traits and the intact organism are shaped. The danger of holism, its opponents claim, is
its tendency to obscure explanation, substituting a fuzzy explanation or term for
complex systems that are not fully resolved. Reductionist virologists claim
they not only can take apart viruses into their protein and nucleic components,
but reconstitute the viruses from these components, or more remarkable, they
can use “off the shelf chemicals” to synthesize the proteins and nucleic acid
of a virus and make a live infectious virus from it as has been done for polio. The
debate becomes polemic on both sides when human behavioral traits or human health
issues are studied. Holistic thinkers
properly condemn what they call genetic determinism for social traits like
pauperism, criminality, psychosis, mental retardation, or inappropriate
personalities. They invoke the abuses of the eugenic movements which tried to
tie these social failings to Mendelian genes.
The science of that social movement was sloppy and repudiated by many
geneticists. Some genetic determinists today invoke molecular lesions in alleged
genes for these traits. The media tend to report alleged genes for alcoholism,
criminality, phobias, belief in God, altruism, selfishness, territoriality, sexism,
and racism. They rarely report in the same detail follow-up reports that fail
to confirm such alleged genetic determinants.
Most puzzling
to me is how to interpret holistic interpretations of life. There is no
doubt things are complex. Cells are
complex. Organisms are complex. Ecological
systems are complex. Cell biologists
have worked out functions for many cell organelles. While viruses can be synthesized from simple
chemicals, bacteria or nucleated cells cannot with today’s available techniques
and knowledge. I would prefer acknowledging
what we do not know than trying to create an alternative holistic explanation
that tells us little about the processes involved. How does such an explanation
differ from invoking a homunculus in each living cell? We could call it a “cellular
soul” that regulates the dance or symphonic coordination, or multiple systems
moving back and forth from the environment to the genes, changing them in subtle
ways. How can this be so plastic if we
look at the physical bodies of identical twins throughout their lives from
birth to death? They are usually strikingly
similar. But in behavior, occupation, or
personality, they can be quite different.
Doesn’t this tell us that the physical body is more fully controlled by
the functioning of our genes? In contrast,
does this not tell us that most social or behavioral traits are controlled chiefly by
upbringing and culture?
