Skip to main content

Blog Article

The Convergence of Natural and Human Science

Leading scientists and scholars ponder the ethical and philosophical dimensions at the intersection of molecular biology and neuroscience.

Published September 1, 2000

By Henry Moss
Academy Contributor

Stuart A. Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute presents material from his forthcoming book, Investigations, at the Academy Conference, “Unity of Knowledge: The Convergence of Natural and Human Sciences.” On the far left is Joshua Lederberg, Nobel laureate and President Emeritus of the Rockefeller University. Seated in the middle is Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University.

It was inevitable that the extraordinary progress in molecular biology and neuroscience of the last few decades would rekindle philosophical debates about human nature and the limits of science. Scientists have been mapping the genetic, neuronal, endocrinal, and somatosensory correlates of human behavior, emotions, memory, language, and thinking, and scenarios abound for explaining our sexual, aesthetic, ethical, and religious predispositions in terms of the blind processes of Darwinian selection. The popular press offers a steady diet of stories and books telling us how much of what we do and think relates to our genes and brains.

The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) brought some of the world’s most respected scientists and scholars to New York City from June 23–25 for the conference Unity of Knowledge: The Convergence of Natural and Human Science to reflect on all this before an audience of nearly 400, from virtually every discipline and from as far away as Belgium, Chile, and Armenia.

The conference keynote was delivered by Edward O. Wilson of Harvard whose controversial book Consilience has done much to rekindle this debate. Updating decades of work in sociobiology with recent findings in behavioral genetics and cognitive neuroscience, Wilson expressed confidence that modern biological science would soon provide material evidence of sufficient scope and depth to reduce even the most esoteric of human cultural precepts to underlying deterministic mechanisms.

Unity: Perhaps Possible

On the opening panel with Wilson were Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute and Joshua Lederberg, Academy Life Governor, and one of the founders of modern molecular biology. Providing a counterpoint to Wilson, Kauffman suggested that unity was perhaps possible but only through a non-reductionist approach, based upon a universe that spontaneously creates wholes from parts, and order from random interactions.

Presenting material from his forthcoming book Investigations, Kauffman proposed that complexity theory can provide adequate definitions of life and intelligence, ones that will hold up in the laboratory. But Lederberg reminded the audience that grand programs, reductionist or holist, are prone to running ahead of the evidence, and that while we have come a long way in modern biology, human culture appears to have left its natural context far behind, perhaps defying a purely natural interpretation.

The next three panels, organized by neuroendocrinologist Bruce McEwen of Rockefeller University, neurologist Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa, and psychologist Jerome Kagan of Harvard, presented a remarkable array of research results that have driven biological science deep into domains usually left to traditional social sciences. There were striking examples of the genetic and neurobiological underpinnings of behavior and states of mind including stress, anxiety, and depression, and a particular emphasis on the important role of biologically-rooted emotion and affect in understanding higher-order mental activity including language and reason.

Looking 25 Years Ahead

The Kagan panel asked what social science might look like 25 years hence, given such powerful biological results, initiating a debate that continued for the rest of the conference. Kagan and others insisted that convergence, though real enough, must balance biological and non-biological perspectives, and incorporate the human environment. University of Chicago social scientist Richard Schweder went much further, suggesting that a “science-driven unity” of knowledge was just old, discredited genetic determinism in new guise, the same determinism that brought us social Darwinism, eugenics and other such excesses of past “scientism.”

The ensuing panels, “Science, Culture, Meaning, Values —a Dialogue,” organized by science historian Anne Harrington of Harvard, and “Science in the Liberal Arts Curriculum,” a roundtable chaired by Academy president Rodney Nichols, continued the discussion, drawing in the humanities, religion, education and a lively and engaged audience. And the debate will continue as the Academy plans further excursions into the broader ethical and philosophical implications of the progress of modern science.

Also read: Teaming Up to Advance Brain Research


Author

Image
Contributing Author