First let me say that I found this book interesting and convincing; I considered giving it 5 stars.



Second, let me say that if you are looking at this book because you read the highly popular book "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea" and you are hoping that this similarly named book is similar in presentation and content, beware -- it is not. Carl Zimmer's book on evolution is a beautifully illustrated, highly readable book for the masses; this book is not. If you are not already well-versed on the mechanics of evolution, or for some reason can't accept them, then it seems unlikely that you will truly understand this book.



Third, I consider the title of this book slightly inappropriate for the book's content. Better titles might be

- In Defense of Sociobiology

- Sociobiology: the Maligned Science

A constant theme throughout the book is that detractors of sociobiology have judged the discipline unfairly. Alcock makes an excellent case for this, particularly in the chapter near the end on practical applications of the discipline. Still, this is probably the most defensive book I have ever read -- quite a lot of text is devoted to what opponents of sociobiology say and why they are wrong, so understand what this book is: a defense of the discipline in the face of harsh, even abusive criticism. Of course, Alcock explains a lot about sociobiology in the process of defending it.



If you're OK with that, and you have the appropriate background and interest to read about how natural selection appears to have shaped the behavioral mechanisms of birds and beetles, then you will find this a good read.



The controversy over sociobiology is evident in discussions about why some men rape women. Sociobiology explores, via the scientific method, the possibility that there could be a genetic influence -- i.e. that in our ancient ancestral males, genes that increased the likelihood of rape might have been more likely to be passed on to future generations. The problem many people have with this is that they feel that an argument that there is anything in our genome which would contribute to the likelihood of a man raping a woman is in effect a justification of rape, a declaration that rape is natural and therefore morally excusable. Alcock does an excellent job of dealing with this subject in his chapter on practical applications, and in fact turns the tables by explaining the harm in pretending that there is no such influence if in fact there is.



Alcock makes repeated mention of "blank slate theorists" -- those who believe that the human brain is not genetically predisposed to any behavior, instead being "programmed" by its environment. To me it seems incredible that anyone could think that humans are exempt from genetic influences on behavior.



Take human obesity, for example. In the environment of our ancient (pre-human, no doubt) ancestors, it was a highly useful adaptation to be able to detect the presence of sugars and fats in vegetable matter and to preferentially eat such tissues. It is easy to imagine how individuals with such genes would be more likely to survive to pass on their genes.



Fast-forward to the 21st century, when we are less active physically but have stores chock full of foods with very high concentrations of fats and sugars. Our taste buds direct us to such foods. The result? -- maladaptive behavior, poor eating habits that lead to obesity, diabetes, and a host of other problems. Isn't it clear...

- that genes influence our behavior?

- that those influences may be maladaptive in the modern environment?

- that genomic influences on our behavior do not imply moral correctness?

If you were trying to combat obesity in the population through education, would you shy away from talking about these genetic contributions for fear that people would consider it natural and good to eat lots of sugars and fats? Or would you help people understand these tendencies in hopes that they would understand that what feels good is not necessarily good for them and ultimately exercise more control in their dietary choices?



And given that human reproductive systems come online at about age 13 but many modern cultures don't condone sex at that age, would acknowledging that there is a genetic basis for sexual desire at that age effectively condone teenage sex and make it more rampant? Should we deny that there is any such genetic foundation, instead treating teenage sexual desire as a cultural artifact -- the "in thing" -- so as not to imply its moral correctness? Would that help?



I'm making up these examples and I'm not a sociobiologist, so take them with a grain of salt, but hopefully they illustrate the point: what would it mean if there were genetic influences that contribute to behaviors that we consider objectionable?



This book, for those with sufficient background, is a good treatment of sociobiology itself and the controversy around it.