In this blog post, we’ll examine the process of scientific progress, the attitude scientists should adopt, and the importance of how science is communicated to the public through Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘Full House’.
How Does Science Advance?
What is the significance of criticizing the achievements of past scientists or philosophers simply because they do not align with current theories? The reason countless scientists conduct research is to gradually refine an imperfect science into something more complete. While analyses focused on individual subjects are important, an overarching explanation is ultimately necessary; above all, it is crucial to maintain an attitude that recognizes the limitations of current theories, research methods, and data analysis. Furthermore, the process of communicating scientific advancements—which often involve abrupt paradigm shifts—in a way that the general public can understand is also crucial. For this reason, while I agree with the scientific facts presented by Stephen Jay Gould in “Part 4: The History of Life Is Not Progress” from ‘Full House’, I find it difficult to agree with his narrative approach or his critical perspective toward past scientists.
Biology is a discipline with many variables and a very broad scope of research, which is why it continues to advance rapidly even today. In the early days of biology, it was Charles Darwin who first presented a systematic interpretation of the history of life—something that no one had been able to explain clearly for a long time.
We often think of the theory of evolution immediately when we think of Darwin, but in fact, Darwin did not actively use the word “evolution.” In the first edition of ‘On the Origin of Species’, he hardly used this term at all; at the time, he primarily used the expression “descent with modification.” Later, as the term “evolution” became widely established, he began to use it in his subsequent works. Although his theory did not originally imply the concept that overall progress results from specific changes, its meaning gradually expanded as many Victorian-era thinkers equated evolution with progress.
The first chapter of ‘On the Origin of Species’ demonstrates the following three propositions.
All living organisms tend to produce more offspring than can survive. Offspring are all different from one another and are not exact copies of an unchanging archetype. Furthermore, at least some of these variations are passed on to the next generation.
Natural selection, as explained by Darwin, refers to adaptation to locally changing environments; it is a concept distinct from progress, which implies a specific direction. He later explained that natural selection operates at the individual level and that traits advantageous for adaptation can accumulate across diverse environments. He also sought to explain the competing interests of the various species that fill the natural world through the concept of the “wedge.”
Natural selection is the process by which, since not all individuals can survive in a limited natural environment, those that happen to be best adapted to the environment survive, and their traits are passed on to their offspring. As this process repeats over a long period of time, evolutionary change occurs.
The author, Gould, criticizes Darwin for having a dual nature in his attempt to explain progress in this way. Gould argues that, because Darwin came from the British upper class, he was not entirely free from the concept of “progress,” which served to justify the prosperity of British society at the time. Gould contends that Darwin—who was intellectually innovative but culturally conservative—modified his theory to satisfy both conflicting intellectual and social demands simultaneously. My position on this is that science should be evaluated based on scientific evidence and logic, not on the researcher’s social background.
Moreover, the state of science in the 19th century, when Darwin lived, was very limited compared to today. It was a time when James Clerk Maxwell and Sadi Carnot were laying the foundations of modern physics, and when Alfred Nobel was developing dynamite. While it is true that Darwin’s logic has some shortcomings by today’s standards, considering the limitations of his time, it is reasonable to understand that he made every effort to compensate for the deficiencies in the theory he had newly established.
Similarly, Richard Dawkins, author of ‘The Selfish Gene’, views genes as the agents of evolution, presenting a perspective different from Gould’s. Although Dawkins’ arguments are very forceful and may sometimes seem aggressive, they do not claim that evolution follows a specific direction either. As biology has steadily advanced, significant differences have emerged between Darwin’s original ideas and modern evolutionary biology; however, considering that scientific progress inevitably entails paradigm shifts, Darwin’s struggles can be viewed as an important step in the development of science.
Why Is the Way Science Is Communicated to the Public Important?
Gould is an excellent writer, and as you read Part 4 of this book, there comes a moment when you stop trying to predict what will happen next. This is because with every turn of the page, a new fact emerges that overturns everything that came before. Since this pattern continues over a considerable portion of the text, by the time you finish Part 4, you may find yourself wondering, “Can we really trust modern science?” There is a drawback to this structure, however, because even the same facts can be perceived entirely differently depending on the order and manner in which they are presented.
While advancing science through research is certainly important, explaining rapidly evolving science in a way that the general public can understand is an equally difficult and crucial task. Let’s examine the importance of how we explain things using “Cope’s Law,” illustrated in this book with the example of foraminifera.
Foraminifera are single-celled protists that form calcareous shells, which is why they are frequently found as fossils. They first appeared during the Cretaceous Period and have survived to the present day; during this time, they endured two mass extinctions, during which most lineages disappeared, leaving only a few to carry on the lineage. In particular, the evolution of planktonic foraminifera exhibits three distinct, largely independent phases. Because all three of these processes follow similar patterns, they have frequently been studied in paleontology as evidence of predictable evolutionary patterns, leading to the accumulation of a vast body of data.
Researchers have conducted various analyses based on large collections of foraminifera data in an effort to identify meaningful laws. However, due to the large number of exceptions, only “Cope’s Law”—which states that body size tends to increase across most lineages—has established itself as a relatively solid explanation. Actual analysis results also showed that the maximum size of foraminifera increased over time, and since cases of increasing body size were confirmed not only in foraminifera but also in various other animal lineages, it appeared that there were advantages associated with larger body size.
However, this information alone is insufficient to conclusively prove that Cope’s Law is correct. When the same data is used to compare ancestors and descendants on a one-to-one basis and the vast dataset is reanalyzed, no consistent upward trend in size changes across generations emerges. Furthermore, no consistent upward trend is observed in lifespan, speciation rates, or extinction rates as size increases. In other words, it is possible that it is not the proportion of large individuals that has increased, but rather that the maximum size has simply grown larger.
Why did analyzing the same data lead to completely opposite conclusions? This likely stems from the difference in whether the data was viewed from the perspective of individual organisms or whether the overall distribution was taken into account. Since research in biology often relies on specific model organisms, it is risky to generalize the results directly. A model organism refers to an experimental subject used in research that represents a specific biological species. Although Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance using peas, he was unable to obtain the same results in studies involving other plants. Furthermore, the mutation theory proposed by Hugo de Vries through his research on evening primroses was later revealed to be an interpretation of a specific genetic phenomenon. The research by Boveri, who proposed the chromosome theory, is also regarded as a case where the specific characteristics of the model organism at the time were not sufficiently taken into account. Since experimental results may be specific to a particular model organism, one must be particularly cautious about generalizations in biology, a field that develops based on experimentation.
Roundworm eggs are transparent, and chromosomes are easily observable during early development, leading them to be considered a suitable model organism for studying the relationship between chromosomes and inheritance. During the research, it was discovered that while chromosomes remain in germ cells, some chromosomes disappear in somatic cells; this phenomenon was termed “chromosome loss,” and attempts were made to generalize it to all organisms. However, it was later revealed that this phenomenon was a specific case observed only in certain types of roundworms.
Furthermore, errors stemming from technical measurement limitations also exist. In the laboratory, to detect foraminifera, fossils were crushed, dissolved in water, and filtered through a sieve; however, due to the limited mesh size of the sieves used, it was difficult to detect very small foraminifera. Ultimately, most of the individuals that survived the mass extinction were small in size. Even if diversity increased over time, leading to the coexistence of large and small individuals, it is possible that the small ones went undetected, resulting in a relatively higher number of large individuals being observed. Therefore, the increase in body size can be explained not so much by the fact that larger sizes were advantageous for survival, but rather as a process of random drift away from smaller sizes. In this case, the core question of the research shifts from “Why are larger sizes advantageous?” to “Why were smaller species more likely to survive mass extinctions?”, and the direction of the research changes accordingly.
What Is the Right Attitude Toward Science?
“Full House” conveys this process to readers in a highly shocking manner. As you follow the narrative, you might get the impression that modern science itself cannot be trusted. However, anyone seeking to advance science can learn from the foraminifera case that current research methods may have weaknesses that need to be identified and addressed, that hastily interpreting given data is risky, and that all possible sources of error must be considered when conducting experiments. New discoveries revise and supplement existing knowledge; they do not mean that all previous knowledge was wrong. However, the general public, unfamiliar with scientific knowledge, may interpret the text in an entirely different way depending on how it is structured. Therefore, the narrative should not lead readers to distrust modern science itself, and efforts to accurately convey the process of scientific progress to the public are also crucial.
While reading ‘Full House’, I found myself agreeing with the author’s perspective on many points. In particular, Gould’s approach to presenting content and his narrative sequence were very refreshing, and he had the power to make even facts that might otherwise be overlooked leave a strong impression. However, it was disappointing that, in evaluating the theories of past scientists, he focused his criticism on the researchers’ backgrounds rather than on scientific evidence. I also believe it was inappropriate to leave room for the general public to develop unnecessary distrust or prejudice toward science. Science is not a discipline that presents finished knowledge; rather, it can be viewed as the process itself—one that evolves through constant verification, revision, and refinement. This experience prompted me to reflect once again on the importance of, should I ever work in a science-related field, maintaining a perspective that considers the bigger picture rather than getting bogged down in individual cases; maintaining a humble attitude that acknowledges current theories can be revised at any time; and never forgetting the responsibility to convey scientific facts to the public accurately and in a balanced manner.
