Letters–
Another error is to suppose Read the science – and please
Genes still central
From Richard Dawkins
David Sloan Wilson’s lifelong
quest to redefine “group
selection” in such a way as to sow
maximum confusion – and even
to confuse the normally wise and
sensible Edward O. Wilson into
joining him – is of no more
scientific interest than semantic
doubletalk ever is. What goes
beyond semantics, however, is
his statement (it is safe to assume
that E. O. Wilson is blameless) that
“Both Williams and Dawkins
eventually acknowledged their
error…” (3 November, p 42).
I cannot speak for George
Williams but, as far as I am
concerned, the statement is
false: not a semantic confusion;
not an exaggeration of a half-
truth; not a distortion of a
quarter-truth; but a total,
unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like
many scientists, I am delighted
to acknowledge occasions when I
have changed my mind, but this
is not one of them.
D. S. Wilson should apologise.
E. O. Wilson, being the gentleman
he is, probably will.
Oxford, UK
David Sloan Wilson and
Edward O. Wilson write:
● Our comment about Dawkins
specifically relates to the error
of using the replicator concept –
genes as the “fundamental” unit
of selection – as an argument
against group selection. Dawkins
writes in The Extended Phenotype
(p 115): “The point here is that we
must be clear about the difference
between those two distinct kinds
of conceptual units, replicators
and vehicles… The majority of
models ordinarily called ‘group
selection’… are implicitly treating
groups as vehicles. The end result
of the selection discussed is a
change in gene frequencies, for
example, an increase of ‘altruistic
genes’ at the expense of ‘selfish
genes’. It is still genes that are
regarded as the replicators which
actually survive (or fail to survive)
as a consequence of the (vehicle)
selection process.”
18 | NewScientist | 15 December 2007
demand. In simplistic terms,
that within-group selection poses
an insuperable problem for
between-group selection.
Dawkins has yet to acknowledge
this error and we apologise if
our article seemed to imply
otherwise. Finally, Dawkins
seems to think that one of us has
somehow confused the other.
We are united in our view
about group selection, which
we converged upon through
separate lines of enquiry.
Apocalypse obfuscated
From Jo Abbess
Almost everyone who looks into
the science of climate change in
any depth finds the scenarios
disturbing. I don’t know why
Michael Hanlon is attempting
to calm anxiety about it
(17 November, p 20). Surely,
as science editor of a national
newspaper, he should know better
than to dismiss others’ attempts
to give it to us straight. Yes, an
individual storm or hurricane
does not proof of global warming
make, but there is no journalistic
style that fits the nature of this
story. How do you report an
emerging truth that covers
everyone and everything alive?
Perhaps by hinting at what a
succession of individual events
portend. Or by linking events to
demonstrate a trend.
How will Hanlon and London’s
Daily Mail report on the UN’s
climate change conference in
Bali? Are the world’s leading
scientists maniacs if they are
doom-mongers? I think not.
don’t listen to voices that urge
you to “calm down, dear”. Phil
Thornhill of the Campaign
against Climate Change says:
“What we need is more screaming
panic.” And I’m with him there, in
a measured, reflective way.
London, UK
From Ben Haller
Michael Hanlon complains that
hurricane Katrina “was reported
across the board as a symbol of
climate change” – and so it was.
His objection? Such reporting
“deliberately links putative future
catastrophes with a current event
and implies they share a common
cause”. In fact, the media repeated,
over and over, that Katrina could
not be linked to global warming in
a cause-and-effect way.
The link between putative
future catastrophes and current
events such as Katrina is not that
they share a common cause –
climate change – but that they
share a common effect.
A friend recently read Daniel
Botkin’s piece “Global Warming
Delusions” in The Wall Street
Journal, which trots out many of
the same arguments as Hanlon.
He showed it to me, saying, “Here,
look: this is why I don’t believe in
global warming.” That is the
danger of articles such as
Hanlon’s. Global warming is real
and it poses an enormous threat
to civilisation. Better that people
accept it with some scientific
inaccuracies in understanding the
details, rather than be persuaded
that it’s a myth by people like
Hanlon and Botkin.
Menlo Park, California, US
The editor writes:
● Visit www.newscientist.com to
read the full version of this letter
Going green
From Elliott Spiker
Fred Pearce’s excellent article
(17 November, p 34) does not
mention that energy is a
commodity, whose price
fluctuates with supply and
conservation leads to a drop in
demand which is then reflected
in a lower price.
This reduced price then drives
demand in other areas and other
sectors, locally and globally. Free
markets will continue to act to
spur consumption of fossil fuels
and other natural-resource
commodities. This is why I believe
that, regrettably, governments
must act to reduce the use of
fossil fuel energy.
I hope another reader
can point out the flaw in
this argument.
West Tremont, Maine, US
From Meghann Mears
As someone who believes in
shouldering a high level of
personal responsibility for
reducing carbon emissions I find
it comforting to know that I can
potentially make a difference.
However, what seems to me to be
the most obvious way of reducing
carbon emissions has been
missed off Pearce’s list: limiting
the number of children one has.
I recognise the economic
problems that population
limitation or reduction lead to,
but if the population reaches the
point that Earth cannot support it,
economies will collapse anyway.
I also know the human rights
arguments against population
limitation. But just how different
is the right to have as many
children as one likes from the
rights to fly as often as one likes
or to eat intensively farmed and
imported food?
We could ignore the problems
of climate change, and thus trade
the welfare of other current and
www.newscientist.com