Letters to the Editor

Abstract

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Sir: Mazin B. Qumsiyeh (Spring 1990 issue) has portrayed passionately and pessimistically some of the heated controversies in modern evolutionary biology. Although they are sweetly reasonable compared to the nastiness of Bishop WiIberforce toward Darwin and Thomas Huxley, Qumsiyeh worries that when scientific positions are held with "acid conviction" they may retard scientific progress. But such worry is foundless. The argument over cladistics versus phenetics is not frivolous; it strikes at the very heart of the central question of evolution—the descent of modern species from ancient ones. It is essential that systematists face the issue squarely. The debate over human sociobiology is classical, stretching back for centuries. For biologists interested in understanding Homo sapiens sapkns, no question is more important or fundamental than the relative contributions of culture and heredity and their interaction. There often lies at the bottom of these debates the problem of imprecise definition of terms. There has been, for example, a public argument over whether parental care should be classed as altruistic [1—4]. However, as Wilson [5, p. 117] points out, "Self-sacrifice for the benefit of offspring is altruism in the conventional but not in the strict genetic sense, because individual fitness is measured by the number of surviving offspring." (emphasis added) Scientific terms must be strict and precise and since altruism in evolutionary theory is a genetic question, the genetic sense must be used, never the conventional. (Even though Wilson himself reverts to the conventional meaning a few pages later.) The failure to define terms precisely and to consistently follow that definition leads to confusion and unproductive debate. Older sciences do not have this problem. In mechanics, the term "velocity" means the time rate ofchange ofposition of a body in reference to a specified direction; it never means simply speed. I am sanguine that as the young science of biology matures, terms will be used more precisely, and useless debate will disappear. REFERENCES 1.Dunford, C. Kin selection for ground squirrel alarm calls. Am. Nat. 111:782-785, 1977. 2.Sherman, P. Nepotism and the evolution of alarm calls. Science 197:1246-1253, 1977. 3.Shields, W. M. Ground squirrel alarm calls: nepotism or parental care. Am. Nat. 116:599-603, 1980. Permission to reprint a letter printed in this section may be obtained only from the author. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 34, 3 ¦ Spring 1991 467 4.Brown, J. L. Cooperation—a biologist's dilemma. In Advances in the Study ofBehavior, edited by J. S. Rosenblatt, R. A. Hinde, C. Beer, and M. C. Busnel. New York: Academic Press, 1982. 5.Wilson, E. O. Sociobiology. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1975. Leonard Hersher College of Medkine State University ofNew York Syracuse, New York 13210 Dear Sir: In a recent assay (Spring 1990 issue), I discussed the development and factors affecting resolution (or lack of resolution) of controversies in evolutionary biology . I used three examples to illustrate recent heated controversies in this field: the designation of subspecies names, the philosophy of systematics, and the influence of sociobiology. My conclusion is that, in some situations, lack of proper data combined with a biased attention to the extremes of any controversy produce heated arguments that sometimes border on being personal and political . I suggested a more "peaceful" approach which involves encouraging more data collection combined with less dogma. Such an approach would be conducive to further research and stimulation of new ideas and would encourage new students of biology to pursue research in evolution. The letter by Dr. Hersher raises two issues. First, he states that discussions such as cladistics versus phenetics are "not frivolous" in biology. I stated in my assay that these controversies are fundamental but that the heated discussions between the extremes of each view may be too excessive, bordering on the political and personal debate and occupying countless pages ofjournal space. I also stated that this level was reached in some evolutionary controversies of which I cited three examples. Again, Hersher implies that I stated that discussions are not good for evolutionary biology and that all discussions lead to heated controversies. His comment, as well as the statement about Bishop Wilberforce, is either because he did...