What do you think?
Rate this book
Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism
"Essential reading for anyone interested in biology and evolution" Ghillean Prince of the Times Higher Education Supplement.
352 pages, Paperback
First published December 4, 1997
5 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
About the author
Steven Rose
43 books30 followersSteven Peter Russell Rose was an English neuroscientist, author and social commentator. He was an emeritus professor of biology and neurobiology at the Open University and Gresham College, London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 26, 2013
In the beginning of the book, Rose cites the successful popular books
by Levins and Levontin such as "Dialectical Biologists" and "Not in
Our Genes". He claims that their thesis of dialectical approach to
evolution and rejection of reductionism in biology bears
repeating. So, apparently, Rose decided to write a me-too book on the
subject. To increase the number of good books so to speak. Problem is
that he tries to extirpate the evils of reductionist thinking without
bothering to learn to write cogently.
Remember the silly principle they taught you in grad school as to how
to write a research paper? Where in the introduction you say what you
are going to say, then say it, then you say what you have said in the
conclusion. Now imagine the whole book where every second sentence is
reflective of what is happening. That's "Lifelines". Rose takes care
to constantly explain to us what it is that he is explaining. He also
makes sure to forward and backward reference the other parts of the
book lest we forget. Rose ensures that the attention is never drawn
from him, the main character of the book. We are expected to observe
and admire how clever he is.
The style is certainly annoying. However, the main problem with the
book is that Rose does not back up his claims with with facts
extensively. He sprinkles anecdotes here and there but he assumes that
if he just says the _right words_ the argument should be convincing
enough. And indeed, Rose views lie in dialectical, progressive part of
academic spectrum. It would have been a great book had he been able to
argue his points convincingly. Instead the book reads like a
scatterbrained self-centered academic cocktail party ramble.
One can still glean some interesting bits of information and key in on
the researchers' names and concepts Rose drops. But such useful bits
are few and far between. With this book, Rose does a disservice to the
cause he set out to support.
by Levins and Levontin such as "Dialectical Biologists" and "Not in
Our Genes". He claims that their thesis of dialectical approach to
evolution and rejection of reductionism in biology bears
repeating. So, apparently, Rose decided to write a me-too book on the
subject. To increase the number of good books so to speak. Problem is
that he tries to extirpate the evils of reductionist thinking without
bothering to learn to write cogently.
Remember the silly principle they taught you in grad school as to how
to write a research paper? Where in the introduction you say what you
are going to say, then say it, then you say what you have said in the
conclusion. Now imagine the whole book where every second sentence is
reflective of what is happening. That's "Lifelines". Rose takes care
to constantly explain to us what it is that he is explaining. He also
makes sure to forward and backward reference the other parts of the
book lest we forget. Rose ensures that the attention is never drawn
from him, the main character of the book. We are expected to observe
and admire how clever he is.
The style is certainly annoying. However, the main problem with the
book is that Rose does not back up his claims with with facts
extensively. He sprinkles anecdotes here and there but he assumes that
if he just says the _right words_ the argument should be convincing
enough. And indeed, Rose views lie in dialectical, progressive part of
academic spectrum. It would have been a great book had he been able to
argue his points convincingly. Instead the book reads like a
scatterbrained self-centered academic cocktail party ramble.
One can still glean some interesting bits of information and key in on
the researchers' names and concepts Rose drops. But such useful bits
are few and far between. With this book, Rose does a disservice to the
cause he set out to support.
August 27, 2019
Argues against reductionism in biology
We are not objects. We cannot be defined by our genes. It is only through an understanding of our developmental history in interaction with our environment that we can hope to know who we are.
Thus Steven Rose, molecular brain biologist and staunch foe of reductionist biology, has called upon the metaphor "lifelines" to describe our "trajectory" through time and space. We are processes. Furthermore, we are not passive processes, tossed hither and yon through life by a blind watchmaker and the dictates of our selfish genes, but active participants, helping to shape our destinies as we go along. We are to some significant degree "self-created." Rose writes: "The central property of life is the capacity and necessity to build, maintain and preserve itself, a process known as autopoiesis" (p. 18). On page 6, he opines, "We are...the products of the constant dialectic between the biological and the social."
Rose also points out that our ability to perform experiments in the real world is limited; how even the most dedicated and thorough scientist in the field can only hope to observe a sampling of the behavior of the animals he or she is watching; how the variables in the real world are so very, very many; and how our attempts to control them can actually result in a falsification of the environment we want to observe. He argues convincingly that the hard sciences, especially physics, have yielded to reduction simply because they are not anywhere near as complex as biology.
Consequently I was very impressed with this book for the first 174 pages or so. Then came the chapters on evolution. Suddenly Rose unaccountably loses his objectivity and his reasoned tone and starts inventing straw men, one he calls "sociobiology" and puts these macho words in its mouth: "Males and their sperm compete, females and their ova quiescently await their fate" (p. 198).
Oops, have I picked up the wrong book? Could this be some rad fem polemic intent on winning some political point? This claim that sociobiologists think that females "await their fate" is particularly startling since on the previous page Rose writes that "Darwin's view was that, by and large, it is the female of the species that does the choosing." Rose then mocks the idea that there might be universal standards of beauty (that would be politically incorrect, no doubt). But the truth is, that while people can and do differ in details, a young, healthy, well-proportioned ("symmetrical," if you will) woman is recognized as attractive in any culture that I have ever heard of. On the next page (199) he makes fun of the idea that human females may choose males with resources ("the Porsche and the Rolex") adding that "wealth is no measure of genetic fitness...nor is there much evidence that its possession results in a greater number of offspring."
Rose knows this is fatuous. It is universally recognized that females across cultures prefer men of means. Why would a reasonable woman, given a choice, choose a poor, ineffective, unsuccessful man, to one who has the ability to help her provide for her children? Rose allows that sexual selection "may be--probably is--an important mechanism...but...we should not let its enthusiasts blind us to the more obvious explanations for the complexity of human sexual arrangements." Those "enthusiasts" are, one presumes, misguided sociobiologists. (Perhaps Rose would like to be regarded as a biology "enthusiast.") And just what are those "more obvious explanations"? Rose does not say.
He goes on to altruism but doesn't mention the handicap principle from The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (1997) by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi, which I recommend that he read. This principle accounts for some acts of altruism by showing that such acts are the advertising of one's ability to others, in particular members of the opposite sex, and are therefore adaptive. He closes the section with a story about "two human sociobiologists" who thought that they had demonstrated that parents who both voted Conservative were more likely to send their child to a private school. Oh boy, and I might find two biologists who voted Liberal who were therefore more likely to send their child to a non-denominational school. As Rose's esteemed colleague, Steven Jay Gould likes to say, "So what?"
Rose begins the next chapter by asserting that "ultra-Darwinism" has "a metaphysical foundation" that includes the premise that "the purpose...of life is reproduction." I don't know who these "ultra-Darwinians" are but most experts on evolution tend toward the idea that "purpose" is an anthropological idea inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
So why is this book reasonable and fair three quarters of the way through and then suddenly we come upon prejudicial attacks against nonexistent bogeymen? It's the same old problem: a personal agenda. No matter how expert one may be, if the subject strays to the area of one's prejudices there is the chance that one may suddenly become as fair and objective as a radio talk show host.
What Rose wants to save us from is determinism, particularly genetic determinism. He thinks that determinism in biology or psychology may lead to the justification of some discredited ideas from eugenics. I don't agree. I think we can safely bury eugenics and such delusions as I.Q. and racial significance. The ghosts of the past are scary and we should be on watch, but we don't have to discredit the insights and accomplishments of sociobiology and/or evolutionary psychology by falsely associating them with those old, tired delusions.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
We are not objects. We cannot be defined by our genes. It is only through an understanding of our developmental history in interaction with our environment that we can hope to know who we are.
Thus Steven Rose, molecular brain biologist and staunch foe of reductionist biology, has called upon the metaphor "lifelines" to describe our "trajectory" through time and space. We are processes. Furthermore, we are not passive processes, tossed hither and yon through life by a blind watchmaker and the dictates of our selfish genes, but active participants, helping to shape our destinies as we go along. We are to some significant degree "self-created." Rose writes: "The central property of life is the capacity and necessity to build, maintain and preserve itself, a process known as autopoiesis" (p. 18). On page 6, he opines, "We are...the products of the constant dialectic between the biological and the social."
Rose also points out that our ability to perform experiments in the real world is limited; how even the most dedicated and thorough scientist in the field can only hope to observe a sampling of the behavior of the animals he or she is watching; how the variables in the real world are so very, very many; and how our attempts to control them can actually result in a falsification of the environment we want to observe. He argues convincingly that the hard sciences, especially physics, have yielded to reduction simply because they are not anywhere near as complex as biology.
Consequently I was very impressed with this book for the first 174 pages or so. Then came the chapters on evolution. Suddenly Rose unaccountably loses his objectivity and his reasoned tone and starts inventing straw men, one he calls "sociobiology" and puts these macho words in its mouth: "Males and their sperm compete, females and their ova quiescently await their fate" (p. 198).
Oops, have I picked up the wrong book? Could this be some rad fem polemic intent on winning some political point? This claim that sociobiologists think that females "await their fate" is particularly startling since on the previous page Rose writes that "Darwin's view was that, by and large, it is the female of the species that does the choosing." Rose then mocks the idea that there might be universal standards of beauty (that would be politically incorrect, no doubt). But the truth is, that while people can and do differ in details, a young, healthy, well-proportioned ("symmetrical," if you will) woman is recognized as attractive in any culture that I have ever heard of. On the next page (199) he makes fun of the idea that human females may choose males with resources ("the Porsche and the Rolex") adding that "wealth is no measure of genetic fitness...nor is there much evidence that its possession results in a greater number of offspring."
Rose knows this is fatuous. It is universally recognized that females across cultures prefer men of means. Why would a reasonable woman, given a choice, choose a poor, ineffective, unsuccessful man, to one who has the ability to help her provide for her children? Rose allows that sexual selection "may be--probably is--an important mechanism...but...we should not let its enthusiasts blind us to the more obvious explanations for the complexity of human sexual arrangements." Those "enthusiasts" are, one presumes, misguided sociobiologists. (Perhaps Rose would like to be regarded as a biology "enthusiast.") And just what are those "more obvious explanations"? Rose does not say.
He goes on to altruism but doesn't mention the handicap principle from The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (1997) by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi, which I recommend that he read. This principle accounts for some acts of altruism by showing that such acts are the advertising of one's ability to others, in particular members of the opposite sex, and are therefore adaptive. He closes the section with a story about "two human sociobiologists" who thought that they had demonstrated that parents who both voted Conservative were more likely to send their child to a private school. Oh boy, and I might find two biologists who voted Liberal who were therefore more likely to send their child to a non-denominational school. As Rose's esteemed colleague, Steven Jay Gould likes to say, "So what?"
Rose begins the next chapter by asserting that "ultra-Darwinism" has "a metaphysical foundation" that includes the premise that "the purpose...of life is reproduction." I don't know who these "ultra-Darwinians" are but most experts on evolution tend toward the idea that "purpose" is an anthropological idea inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
So why is this book reasonable and fair three quarters of the way through and then suddenly we come upon prejudicial attacks against nonexistent bogeymen? It's the same old problem: a personal agenda. No matter how expert one may be, if the subject strays to the area of one's prejudices there is the chance that one may suddenly become as fair and objective as a radio talk show host.
What Rose wants to save us from is determinism, particularly genetic determinism. He thinks that determinism in biology or psychology may lead to the justification of some discredited ideas from eugenics. I don't agree. I think we can safely bury eugenics and such delusions as I.Q. and racial significance. The ghosts of the past are scary and we should be on watch, but we don't have to discredit the insights and accomplishments of sociobiology and/or evolutionary psychology by falsely associating them with those old, tired delusions.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
July 8, 2014
I've been slogging through this at work over the past few weeks. Rose offers a critique of the kind of reductionist logic he sees within a particular strain of scientific thought that he identifies as ultra-Darwinist, and links to thinkers such as Dennett and Hawkins. Rose doesn't outright reject the idea of reductionism, but attempts to identify its limitations in complex systems that is often at the center of biology. He also rejects the notion that we are somehow merely an expression of our genes, and argues for a more complex and indeterminate sense of how organisms develop. You can see a link with the critiques of Lewontin, Gould, Sterling, and even earlier work by the anarchist evolutionary scientist, Kropotkin. It only begins to touch on explicitly political questions with the tenth chapter, but that critique is implicit throughout. A good read.
June 27, 2016
A terrific anti-reductionist book. The penultimate chapter is particularly excellent.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews