The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins & Richard Lewontin
July 21, 2025 | Hareesh J
“Things are similar: This makes science possible.
Things are different: This makes science necessary.”
In their book The Dialectical Biologist, renowned scientists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, draw focus to the superficial agreements that mask some of the most profound disagreements in biology. Richard Lewontin made significant contributions to the theory of evolution and genetics, while leading important debates on the study of human behavior. Richard Levins, who was also a farmer and political activist, extended similar analysis to science as a social process.
At first, the book feels like an assortment of facts intended to debunk myths about biology. However, it clearly does much more. This provocative book assembles essays, which relate the contents of science to the form of the scientific method itself. In it, Levins and Lewontin discuss the dialectical method, a school of thought that they pioneered in the fields of population genetics, ecology, evolution, agriculture and healthcare. The dialectical method emphasizes that the methodologies of scientific inquiry cannot be separated from our innate assumptions and underlying beliefs about nature. While most scientists are trained to believe that science is powerful because of its objectivity, the book argues that scientific inquiry is powerful only when we account for the social conditions surrounding it.
In their essays, the authors discuss the historical factors that contributed to the success of cartesianism, while also demonstrating its limitations. At the heart of cartesian reductionism, is the belief that the complexity of the real world can be uncovered by studying the constituent ‘parts’ that make up a ‘whole’. This approach initially appears objective, as the parts are framed as atomistic entities unbiased by the whole. The whole is merely seen as an emergent consequence of its interacting parts. While complexity theory highlights the limitations of such a view, the dialectical method offers a unique and radical perspective. It makes explicit that a description of the parts is not independent of our expectation or intuition of the whole. For instance, an understanding of the stability and diversity of ecosystems does not require a detailed description of each of its interacting species. A few key factors such as the position of a species in the food web and its resource utilization, among other other things, is sufficient to achieve this.
Levin and Lewontin go on to discuss the notion of objectivity in the scientific process. The variables that we decide to model, measure or observe in biology are not just practical choices that we make but arise from our conception of the whole. If one claims that their view of the parts are not pre-determined by the whole, they are unaware of how these relations are determined, not that they do not exist. It could even reflect inherent ideological beliefs that one is not conscious of. Science is biased, and we pick sides even when we are unaware of it. What we observe depends on what we choose to observe, which in turn, reflects our underlying beliefs about nature.
To illustrate this, they use the example of the notion of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ in human behaviour. The authors point out that though an organism is shaped by both genes and the environment, the common discourse is that genes provide the blueprint and environment merely adds some variability around it. Gene-centered worldviews are reinforced, given how property, power and wealth are inherited by individuals of a select community or gender which can be pinned to genetics as a scientific explanation. Although it is true that science self-corrects for its mistakes, some of these beliefs have persisted largely because of their ideological appeal.
The authors argue that despite the immense success of Marxism, Freudianism and Darwinism in the fields of political economy, psychoanalysis and the natural sciences respectively, their ideas have been caricaturized. In the case of Darwin, the theory of adaptation has been reframed as an innate ability of the organism to change itself to solve a problem posed by the environment. It does not consider how complex social behaviour has helped humans modify their environment, which in turn has shaped their course of evolution. The language of natural selection has been misused to reframe issues such as wealth inequality and healthcare in terms of fitness rather than addressing them as systemic issues of social origin.
Most of us know from experience that scientific research is biased by our social position and belief systems, and is selectively incentivized by research institutions and funding bodies. The book claims that the scientific method is not immune to social factors, though others may brush away these concerns by saying that the scientific method is untainted. Among several case studies, the one example in the book that I relate to the most is what the authors refer to as "sycophantic pragmatism”. Researchers in developing countries believe that they should refrain from fundamental research as it is a luxury only developed countries can afford, while we are expected to focus on applications and variations of existing theories. This is reinforced by commodification of science, where funds are allocated based on what is profitable, giving the control of scientific narratives to fewer scientists, usually from the Global North.
The first few sections of the book are more technical and specific to biology, but I’m willing to bet that topics such as evolution and its exploration in the social context would be of interest even to those unfamiliar with biology. The last section will definitely appeal to anyone interested in science and research, irrespective of their background. Finally, I would argue that the dialectical method is not merely a choice, or one of many ways of looking at the world. It is perhaps a necessity in the current times, given the state of political affairs and its resulting influence on climate, economy and science.
