Behavioral Science 2
Behavioral Science: The Duty of History “Science knows only one commandment---contribute to science.” Bertolt Brecht
“Whenever science makes a discovery, the devil grabs it while the angels are debating the best way to use it.”
Alan Valentine
The relationship between science and society is rapidly changing. With billions of dollars being spent on research, modern genetics is fast becoming a new faith. The Human Genome Project, for example, is the largest scientific undertaking in the history of humankind. In his State of the Union Address in 2000, President Clinton called the Human Genome Project, “a revolution in our ability to detect, treat, and prevent disease" (Clinton, Jan. 27). The discovery of more than 6,000 single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and sickle cell anemia, has reinforced many scientists’ faith in the power of genetics, not only to cure disease but also to solve social problems such as crime and poverty.
The foundation of this new faith is reductionism, the belief that complex phenomenon can be explained by examining organisms at the molecular level. Reductionism is known for reducing objects to their smallest parts instead of viewing them as a whole. As Ruth Hubbard has observed, we have become convinced that “the smallest things can have the most overwhelming effects” (Hubbard and Wald, 1993). As a result, people entrust reductionist scientists to find a solution to social problems.
Reductionist scientists believe that antisocial behavior is rooted in defects in brain chemistry, which in turn are rooted in genetic anomalies. This belief is often referred to as Hereditarianism or Social Determinism, the belief that “human beings can be accounted for primarily on the basis of genetics” (Mehler, 1996). These scientists hope that one day they will be able to trace any illness or behavioral disorder to a defective genotype. They, however, ignore the complexity of social behavior. There are innumerable
“Whenever science makes a discovery, the devil grabs it while the angels are debating the best way to use it.”
Alan Valentine
The relationship between science and society is rapidly changing. With billions of dollars being spent on research, modern genetics is fast becoming a new faith. The Human Genome Project, for example, is the largest scientific undertaking in the history of humankind. In his State of the Union Address in 2000, President Clinton called the Human Genome Project, “a revolution in our ability to detect, treat, and prevent disease" (Clinton, Jan. 27). The discovery of more than 6,000 single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and sickle cell anemia, has reinforced many scientists’ faith in the power of genetics, not only to cure disease but also to solve social problems such as crime and poverty.
The foundation of this new faith is reductionism, the belief that complex phenomenon can be explained by examining organisms at the molecular level. Reductionism is known for reducing objects to their smallest parts instead of viewing them as a whole. As Ruth Hubbard has observed, we have become convinced that “the smallest things can have the most overwhelming effects” (Hubbard and Wald, 1993). As a result, people entrust reductionist scientists to find a solution to social problems.
Reductionist scientists believe that antisocial behavior is rooted in defects in brain chemistry, which in turn are rooted in genetic anomalies. This belief is often referred to as Hereditarianism or Social Determinism, the belief that “human beings can be accounted for primarily on the basis of genetics” (Mehler, 1996). These scientists hope that one day they will be able to trace any illness or behavioral disorder to a defective genotype. They, however, ignore the complexity of social behavior. There are innumerable
References: Bailey, Robert. (1997). “Genetica.” Breggin, Peter Cavanaugh-O 'Keefe, John. (2000). “The Roots of Racism and Abortion: An Exploration of Eugenics.” http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/index.html Clinton, Bill Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder. (1992). Rutgers, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. The Eugenics Bulletin. (1984). Interview with Raymond B. Cattell. Spring-Summer. Galton, Francis Galton, Francis. (1873). “Hereditary Improvement.” Fraser 's Magazine 7 : 116-30. Galton, Francis. (1865). “Hereditary Talent and Character.” Macmillan 's Magazine, 12, 157-166, 318-327. Hubbard, R Lehrman, Sally. (1998). DNA & Behavior: The Topic In-Depth. http://www.dnafiles.org/about/pgm2/topic.html#overview Mehler, Barry Mehler, B. (1983). The new eugenics: Academic racism in the U. S. today. Science for the People, 15, 18-23. Mehler, B. (1997). Beyondism: Raymond B. Cattell and the new eugenics. Genetica, 153-165. Muggeridge, Malcolm. (2004). “The Guardian: Hitler’s Debt to America.” Friday February 6, http://www.tcrnews2.com/Muggeridge2abc.html Nuffield Council on Bioethics Pernick, Martin S. (1996). “The Black Stork..” Oxford University Press: New York. Ripston, Ramona and Watt, Kathleen Smith, George P. II. (1989). “The New Biology: Law, Ethics, and Biotechnology.” New York: Plenum Press. Stone, Dr. Julius. (1973). “10th Annual Mooers Lecture: Knowledge Survival and the Duties of Science.” Washington D.C. Nov. 20. Van Court, Marian. (1982)."Eugenics Revisited." Mensa Bulletin. March, No. 254.