How Richard Lewontin Allowed His Marxist Obsession To Diminish The Scientist In Him

Read parts one and two here:

-Richard Lewontin: Why knowing the works and legacy of this American evolutionary biologist is important for understanding how Left controls the academia

-How Richard Lewontin's (1929-2021) work weakened the case for race being a biological category

Richard Lewontin was a brilliant evolutionary biologist who made sterling contributions to the discipline of population genetics. He was also a Marxist.

As a biologist, he also agonisingly witnessed the Lysenko episode: that sordid saga of Marxist inquisition that hunted and killed geneticists in all the provinces that the Supreme Soviet ruled.

Lewontin knew who was right and who was criminally wrong and he valiantly battled to dissociate Marxism from what came to be known as Lysenkoism.

In the book The Dialectical Biologist (1985), a collection of essays authored by himself and another Harvard biologist and Marxist co-traveler Richard Levins, (1930-2016) he argued vehemently that Lysenkoism was in fact against the genuine Marxist principles. Here is an excerpt so that one can understand the kind of manoeuvres they unleashed to salvage the situation:

Here, what Levins and Lewontin mean by 'philosophy' can dangerously morph into ideology. The devil is in equating Lysenkoism with supposed Marxist philosophy-inspired 'signal successes.' The claim of ‘signal successes’ attributed to Marxism particularly, is with respect to the ‘pioneering work in the origin of life' and was a reference is to the work of Oparin and Haldane.

In 1924, the Soviet bio-chemist Alexander Oparin had come out with a solution to the mystery of the origin of life - that it could have come out of natural chemical processes in the conditions of the early earth. In 1928, British polymath, JBS Haldane, too had come out independently with a similar solution. The hypothesis became quite popular as a plausible explanation for the origin of life.

In 1952, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment simulating what were considered as the primitive earth conditions under the supervision of Harold Urey. In 2010, three years after the death of Stanley Miller, the vials of the famous Urey-Miller experiment were opened and more than 20 amino-acids, the building blocks of proteins, were identified. This was just as speculated by the Haldane-Oparin hypothesis.

Both Haldane and Oparin were Marxists. Hence, Levins and Lewontin projected this as a ‘signal success’ of Marxism. However, this was more a biased speculation on the part of Levins and Lewontin than factual validation. In fact, what turns out to be factual regarding both Haldane and Oparin should be more disturbing than assuring to a biologist who wants to eulogise Marxism.

In their book on the origin of life, Chemist Jeffrey Bada, who, under the guidance of Urey Miller participated in the 1952 experiment, and Christopher Wills, a chemist and an evolutionist, deal with this aspect in detail:

Wills and Bada also point out what Oparin said in an American interview he gave in 1971:

They further point out that Oparin might have derived the idea from the work of Mendeleev 'who had proposed a similar scheme to explain the origin of petroleum.’

Going through the works of Lewontin, one finds that his fascination with Marxism seems to stem from his disenchantment with what he considered as the reductionist obsession and corporatisation of science.

Secondly, he was in a quest for a holistic paradigm even as he detested what he called ‘obscurantist holism’. He, along with Levins, pitted dialectics as the holistic approach against reductionism.

Criticising extreme reductionist tendencies developing in molecular biology, they wrote in their conclusion in Dialectical Biologist:

The ideological sleight of hand is in making dialectics the opposite of reductionism and then implying dialectics as the monopoly of Marxist philosophy.

Veteran evolutionary scientist John Maynard Smith had pointed out that dialectical ideas are not the monopoly of Marxism and a person with dialectical ideas need not and should not on that account alone be labelled a Marxist. He recounts a conversation he had with another giant in evolutionary biology Ernst Mayr (‘No one could be less Marxist than Mayr’):

Unfortunately this is a flaw that ran throughout the works of Lewontin. His ideological prejudices and biases, and his categorization and essentialization of those whom he considered as his ideological enemies and hence enemies of the state, affected his writings.

The ideological rift between Dawkins and Lewontin is well known. Here is how his colleagues and Lewontin attackedRichard Dawkins, accusing him of biological determinism. But the attack turns political, twisting the words of Dawkins:

Lewontin gives an impression that Dawkins is against welfare state because he considers it ‘unnatural’. But when one goes through what Dawkins has actually written, it is something entirely different:

Here one should remember that family planning in democratic countries, is far more humane, despite aberrations.

In fact, Fidel Castro spoke of those with ‘revolutionary genes’ and those without. Marxism-Maoism in China has lent itself to the justification of Han supremacism. Actually in the Marxist universe ‘biological determinism’ takes even a more dangerous form – yielding to officially sanctioned racial persecutions.

The Soviet Union, which officially outlawed eugenics, developed at the same time 'a Marxist conception of historical development with European anthropological theories about cultural evolution'. Prof. Ian Law who specializes in ‘racism and ethnic studies’ explains:

In his review in 'New Scientist' of the aforesaid book Dawkins pointed out how dangerously close in terms of 'the same role and lack of content' was their use of the term 'biological determinist' as the label 'Mendelist-Morganist' was in 'the vocabulary of an earlier generation of comrades'. (This was a veiled and dignified reminder of Lysenko episode).

Here is an interesting thought experiment. We all have seen how the West, despite all its real and perceived faults, has provided a free and level platform where both Dawkins and Lewontin could debate and interact. Now suppose Lewontin was the science commissar of Cuba and Dawkins was the same kind of biologist that he is now but living in Cuba—where would he have ended?

Perhaps Dawkins would have ended up as Vavilov - that geneticist who defied Lysenko and subsequently died in prison. But it should be said that it is to the credit of the Left clout that, to this day this scientist - a martyr for science in our own times, has never been celebrated for his sacrifice and principled stand, as he should be. There is no Vavilov day, no paintings showing his suffering and for standing alone for the truth in the face of power. No exhibitions for the students to see what it means to be a true person of science and integrity.

Dawkins would have suffered the same fate had Lewontin be a commissar of science in a Stalinist West in some alternate universe.

In 2007, Lewontin and Levins came out with another collection of essays - a sequel to The Dialectical Biologist. The essay they wrote on Cuba’s scientific establishment is cringeworthy because it is almost uncritical regurgitation of official Cuban propaganda. Here is a sample:

What the last sentence actually means is that a Marxist indoctrination is compulsory to all the students of science. This is exactly what could make a future Lysenko possible. Now let us consider what actually was the situation in Cuba:

The problem in Cuba is further compounded by the fact that the entire socio-political process is camouflaged in scientific jargon. So anyone who complies with the official stand and statistics, with the official theory in vogue, shall be considered progressive and any scientist questioning the official stands will become an ‘enemy of the people’.

Marxist ideological flirtations with science lead to fertile grounds for breeding Lysenkos.

In short, even a genius of a biologist like Lewontin allowed himself to be vulnerable to support a future Lysenko, all because of the opiate of Marxism.

Another dangerous strand that runs throughout the writings of Lewontin is the use of labels like 'bourgeois scientists' and 'progressive scientists.' In India we have seen what such labelling can do. It can create a mediocre science establishment and stifle creativity and fresh thought.

In the end, the legacy of Lewontin is triple-fold.

For one aspect, he was a brilliant scientist who defied the conventional dominant positions in science and made us see evolution in refreshingly different ways.

Second, he dealt a strong blow to the concept of race and dethroned it as a decisive biological category.

Three, he however allowed his science to authenticate his ideological biases which had already shown a destructive capacity towards free science.

The quest for a holistic understanding of his subject matter made Lewontin accomplish great feats in science and his blurring of the boundary between this genuine quest and his Marxist obsession, diminished the scientist in him.