Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA02928 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:15:34 +0100 Message-ID: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF230040EF3@DELTA> From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Changing threads/ American Nationalism !? Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:11:31 +0200 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Kenneth:
The practical benefit etc. as I see the current situation of science in
America
due to the fact that most scientist do not believe Darwin but do believe in
creation, is zero.
Derek:
Are you saying that most scientists in the USA are creationists? I don't
think that is the case.
Kenneth:
IMHO, the practical benefit is made in those aereas where
Darwinists call the shots. But be aware, if the strong lobby of creation-
be-
lievers gets it way, that will be gone.
Derek:
Of course, there's always that danger. But what will happen, if such a
scenario arises, is that scientists will simply migrate to places where the
laws are less restrictive, and after a bit of readjustment to life in, say,
Canada, business will continue where it left off. The fact is that biotech
is a multibillion euro industry (I have some figures here - in Europe
Ares-Serono has a market capitalisation of 16 billion euros, Elan has 11
billion euros, Qiagen has 8 billion euros, in the USA Amgen is worth 61
billion dollars, Genentech 48 billion dollars. To put that in perspective,
consider that Ford Motors recently paid a mere 3 billion dollars for Volvo.
Rover, I believe, was sold by BMW for even less, just under one billion if I
remember rightly). Nobody can stop the car industry (as anti-pollution
campaigners will ruefully admit), and the car industry is dwarfed by the
biotech industry. There is no chance whatsoever that a religious lobby
could somehow stop the teaching of Darwinian thought. It's just too crucial
to capitalism nowadays.
So, although I share to some extent your fears about the future of the
teching of evolution in the USA, I don't think there is any serious threat
globally.
Kenneth:
And in that respect, again if we take the situation in America where Reform
Lamarckism is closer to the truth than Darwinism will ever be, I think Dar-
winism is an European thing, exuse me for the term !!
Derek:
I don't understand, how can Lamarckism be 'closer to the truth'? Also
Darwinism is not just a European thing. Quite a few of the greatest
evolutionary theorists have been American (Sewall Wright, Ledyard Stebbins,
Richard Lewontin, James Crow, Robert Trivers, I could add Steve Gould and
Daniel Dennett but that would immediately start an argument....), not to
mention the expat evolutionary theorists who left their own countries to
make a name for themselves in American universities (Theodosius Dobzhansky,
Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, Francisco Ayala, Susumu Ohno). It's always seemed to
me that Darwinism is really very American.
Kenneth:
I now exactly where the benefits of Darwinism are, but how will you ever
convince American scientist of the same fact, if Lamarckism is one of the
cornerstones of their scientific thought !?
Derek:
But is it? I mean can you name a modern neo-Lamarckian working in the USA?
I can't. The only neo-Lamarckian I can think of is Robert Steele, and he's
an Aussie. (I could mention Brian Goodwin, or Mae-Wan Ho, but they might
not thank me for the label neo-Lamarckian, and in any case they're both
based in the UK, and Goodwin is English).
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 08:16:31 BST