Selfish Gene

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

According to this article, the idea of the Selfish gene is only a metaphor.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/#:~:text=Neo%2DDarwinism%20is%20the%20term,correct%20since%20Romanes%20coined%20the

*********
This article argues that the gene-centric interpretations of evolution, and more particularly the selfish gene expression of those interpretations, form barriers to the integration of physiological science with evolutionary theory.

The DNA molecule on its own does absolutely nothing since it reacts biochemically only to triggering signals. It cannot even initiate its own transcription or replication. It cannot therefore be characterised as selfish in any plausible sense of the word.

It would therefore be more correct to say that genes are not active causes; they are, rather, caused to give their information by and to the system that activates them. The only kind of causation that can be attributed to them is passive, much in the way a computer program reads and uses databases. The selfish gene idea therefore has to be interpreted not only as a metaphor, but as one that struggles to chime with modern biology.

Attributing selfishness to all genes therefore leaves us with nothing we could measure to determine whether ‘selfishness’ is a correct attribute. As metaphor, it may work. But as a scientific hypothesis it is empty.

The weight of evidence in the physiological sciences is now much more favourable to the metaphor of ‘co-operation’ than of ‘selfishness’. Gene products all co-operate in robust networks one of whose functions is precisely to insulate the organism from many of the vagaries of gene mutation, and stochasticity at lower levels.

**********

Interesting.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Nearly Sane]

Err yes, of course it's 'just a metaphor', Dawkins makes that completely clear in The Selfish Gene. Andrew Brown in The Darwin Wars created a little fairy story metaphor about Dawkins that when he was born, there was a big 'Christening' party and all the fairies were invited but they forgot about the bad , So the day came, and all of the fairies gave the baby Dawkins gifts. One gave him intelligence, one gave him good looks, one gave him skill at writing BUT of course the bad fairy swept in annoyed and told everyone that Dawkins would be cursed as they had not received an invite. So they walked up to the crib, and cursed him with metaphor.

The problem is that creating a metaphor that works if you read the book and it makes clear that it's a metaphor, doesn't work if all you have is the title and a basic explanation. Anyway, here's a quote about the title that makes clear that it always was a metaphor and part of the problem.

'Science is a victim of its own reductive metaphors: 'Big Bang,' 'selfish gene' and so on. Richard Dawkins' selfish gene fitted with the Thatcherite politics of the time. It should actually be the 'altruistic gene,' but he'd never have sold as many books with a title like that. '

Charles Jencks
.

[Stranger]

According to this article, the idea of the Selfish gene is only a metaphor.

Well of course genes can't literally be selfish. The argument was basically that we should consider genes to be the "unit of selection". As he says in the book: "I shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity."

[Sriram]

The article seems to indicate that the gene is not the only unit of heredity.....and nor is the gene the unit of selection.

Selection happens on the phenotype and there seems to be a gap of sorts between the genotype and the phenotype.  In fact, the article seems to suggest that the organism chooses the genotype that it needs to activate for obtaining a specific phenotype. Gene expression is the key. 

We already know that a specific genotype can produce different types of phenotypes to suit the environment (phenotypic plasticity).

Genes don't seem to be hardened and rigid drivers of the phenotype. Its all a bit iffy in there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder how "The Selfish gene" would have fared had it been called something as snappy and equivalent e.g.
"Every gene for itself".