Ardrey or Desmond Morris. A fewnyears back a prominent conservativenorganization held a discussion of “thennew synthesis.” Few people in thenaudience seemed to understand thensocial and political relevance of thendebate.nTwo recent books illustrate bothnwhat sociobiology is and why it makesnso many academics see red: The ExtendednPhenotype by Oxford zoologistnRichard Dawkins; and Not in OurnGenes by geneticist R. C. Lewontin,nneurobiologist Steven Rose, and psychologistnLeon J. Kamin. Sociobiology,nboth sides would agree, isnessentially a biological approach tonstudying the behavior and social life ofnorganisms. In particular, it assumesnthat behavioral traits are, by and large,nprogrammed genetically. The type ofnmud a wasp uses to build her nest, thensize and shape of its construction, thenIS/CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnnumber of eggs she lays (as well as hownand when), the decision whether tonbuild a new nest or attempt the takeovernof an existing one—all thesentraits, it is assumed, have a geneticnbasis. The pioneers of sociobiology,nW. D. Hamilton, Robert L. Trivers,nEdward O. Wilson, were primarilynconcerned with reproductive success.nAfter all, the “survival of the fittest”nshould mean that organisms with beneficialntraits will survive and propagatenmore successfully than rivals who lacknthe trait. These traits—sharp teeth,nstrong muscles, and the infinite complexitiesnof human social behaviorn—are all genetic in origin.nRichard Dawkins may be the mostnradical of the genetic determinists.nThe essence of his view is summed upnin the word selfish. His first book, ThenSelfish Gene suggested that “the fundamentalnunit of selection, and thereforennnof self-interest, is not the species, nornthe group, nor even strictly the individual.nIt is the gene, the unit ofnheredity.” In other words, organisms,nincluding the human organism, arensimply vehicles adopted by geneticnreplicators as part of a strategy of survivalnand reproduction. Samuel Butlernput the matter crudely a hundred yearsnago: a chicken, he declared, was simplynan egg’s way of making anothernegg. The selfishness of genes can andnwill be used to explain just about everynfacet of organic life, including parentalncare and the altruism we display towardnrelatives (what Wilson calls “softcorenaltruism”). The self-sacrificingnkindness we display to kindred is tonsome extent a function of our degree ofnrelatedness, that is, the percentage ofngenes we are likely to have in common.nIf I carry gene A, I have a 50npercent probability that a given one ofnmy children or siblings will carry thensame gene. The figure goes down to 25npercent in the case of grandchildren.nThis sort of thinking obviously laynbehind J. B. S. Haldane’s bon motnabout altruism. When asked in a pubnif he would sacrifice his life to save hisnbrother, Haldane replied not for onenbrother, but he would for three brothersnor nine cousins.nDawkins puts this notion of geneticnselfishness at the heart of the strugglenfor survival. In his view, animal communicationnbecomes a form of manipulation:nthe sender compels/persuadesnthe receiver to alter his behavior. Thenmale canary sings in order to induce anreproductive condition in the femalen—persuading her, in effect, to producenoffspring that will carry his genes.nBut Dawkins does not restrict himselfnto the gross level of animal reproduction.nIn an almost terrifying display ofnreductionist brilliance, he speculatesnon the selfishness of DNA itself. Hisnhypothesis—that “phenotypic charactersnof an organism [that is, the manifestednattributes] are there because theynhelp DNA to replicate itself”—leadsnhim to wonder about the reason forn”junk” DNA, the surplus which maynnever be translated into RNA. Why,nfor example, does a salamander needn20 times the number of different genesnthat are found in man? From Dawkins’snperspective the question almostnanswers itself: there is a “molecularnstruggle for existence” (Orgel & Crick)n