For the moment, the issue is at an impasse.

But possibly the most damning criticism Roughgarden receives is that she’s deviating from science, and allowing a personal “gay agenda” to influence her take on the data. Indeed, her public advocacy—including a “political agenda for transgendered people” included in Evolution’s Rainbow—isn’t helping her reputation among scientists. “She is concerned about the implications outside of science, and it would be even more so because she’s been on the receiving end of the implications of that,” says recent graduate student Erol Ackay. “But I don’t think that’s a valid criticism of the science.” Carol Boggs, a biologist and colleague at Stanford for more than 30 years, says, “She’s always had a concern about social issues and political issues, and I think many scientists at one level or another are concerned about social and political issues.  It’s just that we’re used to having scientists be concerned about environment issues, or something like that. We’re not used to having scientists who are coming from biology being concerned about gender issues.”

Many consider the debate over sexual selection to be one of the most heated exchanges currently taking place in the life sciences, and it seems that many are optimistic about the results. In one of the letters responding to the Science review, Jeffrey Stewart of the Aeri Park Institute wrote, “The game theory idea might be better argued…nevertheless, the use of game theory and the associated mathematics of reproductive behavior research could prove extremely useful in this field.” In a Science review published at the end of last year, Clutton-Brock wrote, “Roughgarden’s views are unusual, but it is clear that the mechanisms underlying sex differences in reproductive competition and the traits associated with them are both more diverse and more complex than was initially realized. In the wake of Roughgarden et al.’s review, both the exceptions to the basic structure of sexual selection theory and the operation of sexual selection in females deserve further attention.” Gowaty says she disagrees with Roughgarden’s game theory approach, but she also says, “I am always delighted when controversial ideas, even ones that I’m not in agreement with or ones I think are silly, see the light of day. I always hope that where there is heat, some light might be generated.”

In this case, Roughgarden’s controversy may end up contributing to the field in ways that neither she nor her critics predicted. Only more research will determine if there’s anything to “social selection,” or whether sexual selection still provides a valid model. In the immediate future, Roughgarden has no plans to slow down. Still working to make her research relevant to different fields, she gives talks all over the country at the invitations of psychologists, social scientists, and even philosophers. Currently, she’s in the midst of revising the sequel to Evolution’s Rainbow, which will debut in early 2009. Titled The Genial Gene: Deconstructing Darwinian Selfishness, it challenges Richard Dawkins’ famous selfish gene metaphor, asking whether the gene-centered view of evolution explains sexual behavior. Confronting another basic tenet of the field will almost certainly cause more controversy; Roughgarden has already been filmed with Dawkins for the BBC. Let’s hope the controversy leads to insight.

Sandya Viswanathan is a documentary filmmaker whose projects have aired on The History Channel, National Geographic Channel, and PBS. She resides in New York City. 

1 2 3 4