The Human Nature Review

This is a strange and ultimately unsatisfying book. It is an examination of the self-image created by the slogan “It’s all in the genes.” One reason that the analysis is ultimately unsatisfying is due to Graham’s decision to focus his philosophical analysis on popular expositions of genetics and biotechnology and the way in which these expositions shape a popular understanding of the implications of modern genetic. Thus, much of the book is spent on a critique of a simplistic version of ‘universal Darwinism’ as espoused by Richard Dawkins in his popular writings. While there are some interesting points raised, a general reader will come away with a distorted view of the science, the associated technologies and the pressing moral concerns raised by them. The target audience is the intelligent non-specialist. What is such a person to make of the debates that rage around the claim that “it’s all in the genes?” Graham poses three central questions concerning this slogan: [1] What is the “it” that allegedly is “in the genes?”, [2] What is the force of the “all” in “all in the genes?”, and [3] What is the social significance of the truth or falsity of the slogan? The central framework of the book is the acknowledgement of the power of icons and images to shape our understanding and our sympathies. The slogan “It’s all in the genes” in all its various manifestations creates a selfimage that shapes how we think of ourselves. What, Graham wants the reader to consider, should that self-image be? The author tackles this question from a broadly philosophical perspective. He begins by noting that the general self-image of our modern age includes a tension between two visions of science and technology represented by Einstein, on the one hand – the power of science to produce understanding, and Frankenstein, on the other, the danger of technology run amok. He proposes a philosophical examination of the these icons in particular, how they are played out in genetics – in hopes that it will prompt the reader into a reassessment of our understanding of science and technology (p. 9). He begins with some reflections on the difference between the phrases “my philosophy” and “my science.” The one sounds legitimate to us, the other not despite the long etymology where what are now paradigmatic “sciences” were once “natural philosophies,”