West End Child & Family Service, 2062-68 Hessle Road, Hessle HU13 9NW, North Humberside, UK
I am very much honoured that a prominent scientific writer like Rose (2001) treats me with the same method as he and his circle have treated E. O. Wilson in their recent collection of essays (Rose & Rose, 2000). Being a mere practising psychiatrist, it puzzles me why it has become acceptable for the anti-sociobiology/evolutionary psychology movement to misquote their opposition, in either a patronising or an openly hostile way, attributing hidden agendas to those who dare to think about human behaviour and psychological functioning in an evolutionary context. Clearly, they feel that the end justifies the means, and that their version of the truth has to be defended at any cost.
Segerstrle
(2000), in a detailed analysis
of the sociobiology debate, compared the two camps of scientists to gardeners:
one side representing the planters, and the other the weeders. It seems to me
that both tasks are important in the development of the perfect garden of
science. Rose appears to be an overzealous weeder, who is afraid that the
dangerous weed of evolutionary psychology will destroy his garden and tries to
kill it at every opportunity. The effort is unlikely to succeed. However, I
need to point out that in my previous letters concerning the evolutionary
psychology debate (Ayton, 2000,
2001) there was nothing to
imply some sort of conspiracy in psychiatry to ignore biology
(Rose, 2001). About 30-40% of
all psychiatric references on the Medline database are biological studies, so
there is no lack of biological studies and theories. However, what is lacking
is a coherent theoretical framework; and evolutionary theory is largely
ignored by psychiatric training or academia. It is untenable to state that
only proximal causation is relevant to mental states or human behaviour. This
was recognised by Darwin and beautifully demonstrated by Bowlby. Despite
initial strong criticism, Bowlby's contribution to the understanding of the
motherinfant relationship has become fundamental, and has wiped out
earlier explanations.
If nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (Rose, 2001), then surely, human beings and their behaviour cannot be excluded on scientific grounds.
REFERENCES
Ayton, A. (2000) Implications of evolutionary
theory for psychiatry (letter). British Journal of
Psychiatry, 177,
370.
Ayton, A. (2001) A defence of evolutionary
psychology (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry,
179,
267-268.
Rose, H. & Rose, S. (eds) (2000) Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. London: Jonathan Cape.
Rose, S. (2001) Revisiting evolutionary
psychology and psychiatry (letter). British Journal of
Psychiatry, 179,
558.
Segerstrle, U.
(2000) Defenders of the Truth. The Sociobiology
Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |