Greetings Economists, There are some interesting quotes from Steven Rose in the London Times about his new book (which is not currently published in the U.S. so I can't comment on directly). The interviewer makes this comment to start with;
Interviewer, Steven Rose feels strongly about many things. Most famously, in the science world at least, he passionately opposes evolutionary psychology (the idea that we're all just lumbering robots in thrall to our selfish genes), as profligated by his nemesis, Richard Dawkins. Doyle, right on Steven. Dawkins has this old school theory called memes, which the Romans were using under the rubric of the 'impression' great Romans made upon the little slaves. The concept of impression and memes has no great meaning other than what's a copy, or to say mathematically, what is the symmetry properties of something? We really don't know why the environment reproduces copies from different species, as Lewontin writes in his essay from the point of view of perplexity. >From the interview in the London times; "There is also the possibility of using brain imaging pre-emptively," says Rose, "in order to catch psychopaths before they commit a crime." Blimey. It's straight out of Minority Report; or, rather, Minority Report is straight out of this. And what about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, in which the protagonist attempts to erase the memory of a painful relationship would that be possible? "It is slightly fanciful, but it's being taken seriously," says Rose.He explains: "In order to make memories last, you need to make new molecules, new proteins, which actually change the structure of the cells. It's been known for a long time that with experimental animals, if you prevent the proteins being made, the memories can't be stored. There's a suggestion that this technique could be used in post-traumatic shock disorder: re-evoke the memory and then block the protein, so the patient loses their memory for that particular event." Doyle, I think this quote from the interview with Steven Rose gives a flavor of Rose that is missing from Lewontin's essay. Rose is deeply committed to using drugs to enhance human performance. Which I think Lewontin's essay is indicating skepticism towards. That's a bit missing I think in how Lewontin writes. Not a major criticism. But more how the 'matrix' of internet based reviews gives us various sides to consider and that the communal picture ends up being more stable and of interest than a one sided view can be. In the Economist, "The 21st-Century Brain" promises, in its subtitle, to explain how neuroscience will allow the mind to be mended and manipulated, and to categorise what the possible implications of this mending and manipulation may be. This is a fascinating topic; indeed, there are few more interesting questions in science today. It is a shame, then, that Mr. Rose waits until the last quarter of his book to begin addressing the subject in earnest. And when he does, it is in prose that somehow manages to be both hurried and laggardly at the same time, jumping back and forth between scientific research papers, television popularisations of neuroscience, and apocalyptic novels (primarily Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World") in such a way that the thread of his argument is all too often lost. Doyle, Interesting comment on the book as well. Though from a more hostile perspective still I might find it true were I to read the book. thanks, Doyle
