Evolution Beyond the Selfish Gene

According to Richard Dawkins, we humans are but "robot vehicles" programmed to carry our genes further. Not so, argues epigeneticist Eva Jablonka.

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”

These are hallowing words for some. For others, they are from one of “the most inspiring science books of all time”.¹ Indeed, Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene is one of the most iconic books in the history of popular science writing. Reading it induced many readers “with psychic trauma”, turning their “moral world upside down”.² At the same time, it has inspired generations of science enthusiasts. And one thing is clear: it is a well-written book with a weighty message. And the message is not just Dawkins’s own. It is nothing more or less than the “Modern Synthesis” of evolutionary biology — one of the titanic achievements of modern science.³

Naturally, any term like “modern synthesis” will have slightly different meanings in different contexts. Not all proponents agree with Dawkin’s interpretation. But the big picture is clear: Genes produce traits; mutations in genes produce new traits; if nature favours some traits over others, the relevant genes will become more widespread in the population. The lesson? It’s the genes, stupid! We organisms are nothing but a carrier for the real players of the game of life. Or to repeat the quote from earlier, we are but “robot vehicles”, who are “blindly programmed” to preserve those selfish genes.

This was not just a metaphorical position. It translates into a very serious position in the philosophy of biology: a position where biology might be a “special science” — and might have interesting emergent properties — but these interesting properties end at the level of the genes. We organisms are but an ”epiphenomenon”.

Unsurprisingly, many readers disliked the idea of being but a “robot vehicle” or a “survival machine” for tiny molecules — especially if these molecules are best served by repeated pregnancies or donations to a sperm bank. But Dawkins was right in one thing.

“However much we may deplore something, it does not stop being true.”

So what is true?

I have written previously about one claim in the Selfish Gene which is certainly not true. This is the claim that, if Modern Synthesis holds, then we must be “born selfish”. Unfortunately, this claim became the most cited section of the book. Here it is in its entirety.

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”

This is nonsense. Even Dawkins admitted this. In later editions of the book, he begged readers to “mentally delete that rogue sentence and others like it.” If this issue interests you, you can head to my 2022 essay, “Distorting Darwinism”, published in The Skeptic. But in this piece, I shall ask a different question: is Dawkins’ philosophy based on the best available science?

The most relevant challenge to Dawkin’s philosophy comes from the so-called Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). The proponents of the Extended Synthesis don’t say Dawkins got it all wrong. Rather, they wish to, literally, "extend” the acceptable methods via which natural selection can operate. But these extensions can, these authors argue, cause a sea change in the philosophy of biology.

So what are these new evolutionary methods allowed by the Extended Synthesis? Thre are many. To my eye, some seem like rather soft extensions — they might tweak the picture a bit, not cause a revolution. But there is one clear exception to this rule: epigenetic inheritance. In epigenetic inheritance, parents pass on non-genetic traits which they have acquired from life experience. This is something which was absolutely not supposed to happen according to the Modern Synthesis. And yet it does. Such effects have been reported again, again, and again.

So how much does it change the underlying philosophy?

Eva Jablonka is one of the leading scholars of epigenetic inheritance. Last year, I got to interview her on the evolution of consciousness. It was a fun topic, but not a light one. We were both tired after the 90-minute-long chat, but I hesitantly asked her if she’d like to continue a bit on epigenetics.

“Sure, let’s do it,” she said.

You can now listen to our conversation on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube (audio only) or wherever you get your shows.

In the show, Jablonka gives an excellent tour of the science of epigenetics. I highly recommend listening to it. But you can also keep reading for the philosophical conclusion of our conversation.

So what’s the debate?

The facts are not controversial. No serious scientist disagrees with that epigenetic inheritance happens. Dawkins himself has been explaining them to the general public. But according to Dawkins and his co-author Yan Wong, epigenetic inheritance is “insignificant” as an evolutionary force. Yes, epigenetic inheritance can happen. But it doesn’t shape the big picture of evolution by natural selection.

I relayed this argument to Eva Jablonka. As I elaborated, epigenetic inheritance often fades away after a few generations. This is not stable enough to cause speciation. To understand the origins of species, we need to focus on the genes. And anyway, epigenetics works by methods such as DNA methylation — in other words, by impacting the expression of genes. Here again, genes take centre stage. So does this change anything philosophically?

Jablonka’s answer was two-fold.

First, she explained that the “fading away” of epigenetics is not a big hurdle. Mutations, too, fade away from the population if the conditions that favour them don’t persist. If the condition inducing an epigenetic change persists, so will the epigenetically passed-on trait. As an example, childhood trauma causes well-known epigenetic changes. If the traumatic context persists, so will the epigenetic changes.

There are further paths via which epigenetic changes might become stabilised across many generations. I won’t go through all of them in writing. But there is a much more significant issue to be dealt with: what about the philosophy? Isn’t DNA still the right level of analysis?

No. Not according to Jablonka.

Her argument goes as follows.

According to Dawkins and others, genes are what natural selection works on. The organism is only relevant as a machine to carry these genes to the next generation. But in reality, both genetic mutations and epigenetic changes contribute to the development of the organism. Or as Jablonka might reframe this: both genetics and epigenetics are relevant to evolution only in as far as they contribute to the development of the organism. From this new angle, the organism is the main character again.

“We are not survival machines for the genes. It’s the organism in its world that takes the centre stage.”

Goodbye, robot vehicles. Welcome back, living beings.

Or so argues Jablonka. Thoughts? Share them in the comments!

---

Listen (19min): Spotify | Apple Podcasts | YouTube | Other players

1. The quote is from the Royal Society’s Science Book Prize announcement, as printed on the front cover of the 40th-anniversary edition of the Selfish Gene.

2. The quotes are from psychiatrist Randolph Nesse’s excellent essay, “Why many people with selfish genes are pretty nice except for their hatred of the Selfish Gene”

3. The term “Modern Synthesis” was already used by Julian Huxley in 1942, so over a decade before the discovery of DNA’s double-helix structure. But in many ways, Huxley had the basics down. The mechanics of DNA can be seen as having proved him right.