Pharyngula

Benzer was a titan in neurogenetics. His impact on the field, both in terms of the studies performed in his lab and the huge number of his trainees who have gone on to their own successful independent careers, has been immense.

Posted by: PhysioProf | December 2, 2007 4:17 PM

neurogentics is primarily looking at proximate causes, and sociobiology is primarily looking at ultimate causes.

that's the largest general distinction.

something specific you wanted to know.

what does "greedy reductionism" mean?
do please spell it out for us.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2007 7:59 PM

This is a sad moment. Seymour Benzer was so influential in so many ways. While it may seem trivial, I think one of the great influences from his lab was the somewhat whimsical naming of learning mutants by him and his students. Great scientist.

Posted by: rjb | December 2, 2007 8:16 PM

"Greedy reductionism"

then using the term as defined by Dennet, why bother to apply it specifically HERE? It's equally applicable to just about any scientific field you can name.

Moreover, was there something specific within the fields of genetics or behavior you wished to discuss?

btw, Dennet is NOT a biologist, so take his interpretations of the ToE, and researches regarding same, with a grain of salt.

Most of us who actually do science do.

Or did you want to take the occasion of Dr. Benzer's demise to denounce the application of the ToE to human behavior, perhaps?

If so, are you sure it's appropriate?

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2007 8:27 PM

Ichthyic, the phrase "greedy reductionism" came to my mind when I heard how Benzer was (sadly, now in the past tense) connected to neurogenetics and how that might related to the sort of sociobiology espoused by E.O. Wilson. I'm no scientist (I only have a lowly B.S. in CompSci) but I was wondering how the two are related, or not. Personally, I do think that trying to explain complex behaviors by simply correlating them with specific genes is greedy reductionism. I have no truck with those who try to correlate IQ with race, certainly.

What's your beef with Dennett regarding the ToE? I'm curious, having heard a few things here about adaptationism. As I recall, Richard Dawkins had some differences with Steve Gould on that subject also. Dennett isn't a biologist, but frankly he's no dummy either.

Posted by: David Wilford | December 2, 2007 8:48 PM

and how that might related to the sort of sociobiology espoused by E.O. Wilson.

what sort of sociobiology is that?

hmm. did you know that Dennet defended much of what Wilson had to say on the subject?

forgive my initial tone, but it sounded like you were simply one of those "evolution can't work" trolls.

as to how neurobiology, behavior and genetics, are related to evolutionary theory...

they are related in exactly the same was as morphology, physiology, and genetics are related to evolutionary theory.
no more, no less.

there is nothing more to sociobiology than an attempt to apply the basic mechanism of natural selection to behavior in all organisms, including humans.

selection doesn't always work (directly) as a mechanism to explain every trait, regardless of whether we are speaking of a physiological, morphological, or behavioral ones (and Wilson never claimed it did). However, it's a productive place to begin investigations, no doubt about it, as demonstrated by Wilson's own research into the social behavior of insects.

most of the negative reaction to Sociobiology was based on what might be done with the implications of the research, not the actual research he based his ideas on.

I do think that trying to explain complex behaviors by simply correlating them with specific genes is greedy reductionism.

it certainly can be, just as with any field of endeavor, no more so in the study of behavior than anywhere else, however.

There are hundreds of studies demonstrating strongly heritable behaviors, dating all the way back before Tinbergen, some of which have been tied to specific, readily identifiable genes, in part due to the work of people like Benzer. Simply because a behavior is "complex", it doesn't nullify the effect selection might have/had on it.

The value of Benzer and those like him is that we in fact ARE able to tie specific behaviors to specific genes, which then allows us to ask the more ultimate question (since that means those behaviors are heritable), as to whether or not that specific behavior was shaped by selection.

perhaps you are just hung up on the issue of "behavior" as a trait? Have you posed the same question to yourself regarding "complex" morphological traits as you have with behavioral ones? Take for example, the human immune system, which was one subject of contention in the Dover trial, remember? quite complex. do you suppose that it wasn't capable of being formed through the mechanism of selection?

anyway, there is a decent summary (with references) of the debates that occured around the time Wilson released his book on the wiki article for Dennet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

you might want to start with those to get a better perspective on the issue, or even check out a copy of Sociobiology to see for yourself what Wilson was presenting.

As I recall, Richard Dawkins had some differences with Steve Gould on that subject also.

indeed, and Dennet sided with Dawkins for the most part.

my only problem with philosophers has nothing to do with their relative intelligence, but in their lack of actual experience in applying that intelligence to actual experiments.

even if I agree with their conclusions, I still take them with a grain of salt because of that.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2007 9:38 PM

Little known fact that Benzer also created Mothra.

Posted by: Hexxenhammer | December 2, 2007 11:39 PM