In 1975, when
E. O. Wilson's book
Sociobiology proposed evolutionary explanations for human social behaviors, biologists, including Lewontin and his Harvard colleagues
Stephen Jay Gould and
Ruth Hubbard, responded negatively. Lewontin and Gould introduced the term
spandrel to evolutionary biology, inspired by the
architectural term "
spandrel", in an influential 1979 paper, "
The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme." "Spandrels" were described as features of an
organism that exist as a necessary consequence of other (perhaps adaptive) features, but do not directly improve fitness (and thus are not necessarily adaptive). This critique sparked both controversy and a revolution in the study of selection by evolutionary biologists. The subsequent 5–20 years consequently saw some of the most novel and rigorous methods to quantify selection in the wild and lab, test for selection phylogenetically, and reconcile the effects of other evolutionary processes (e.g., drift, gene flow, development, historical contingency); all of which resulted in a sort-of renaissance in evolutionary biology. Lewontin was an early proponent of a hierarchy of
levels of selection in his article, "The Units of Selection". He has been a major influence on philosophers of biology, notably
William C. Wimsatt (who taught with Lewontin and
Richard Levins at the University of Chicago), Robert Brandon and
Elisabeth Lloyd (who studied with Lewontin as graduate students),
Philip Kitcher,
Elliott Sober, and
Sahotra Sarkar. Lewontin briefly argued for the historical nature of biological causality in "Is Nature Probable or Capricious?". In "Organism and Environment" in
Scientia, and in more popular form in the last chapter of
Biology as Ideology, Lewontin argued that while traditional
Darwinism has portrayed the organism as a passive recipient of environmental influences, a correct understanding should emphasize the organism as an active constructor of its own environment.
Niches are not pre-formed, empty receptacles into which organisms are inserted, but are defined and created by organisms. The organism-environment relationship is reciprocal and
dialectical.
M. W. Feldman and others have developed Lewontin's conception in more detailed models under the term
niche construction. In the adaptationist view of evolution, the organism is a function of both the organism and environment, while the environment is only a function of itself. The environment is seen as autonomous and unshaped by the organism. Lewontin instead believed in a constructivist view, in which the organism is a function of the organism and environment, with the environment being a function of the organism and environment as well. This means that the organism shapes the environment as the environment shapes the organism. The organism shapes the environment for future generations. Lewontin criticized traditional
neo-Darwinian approaches to
adaptation. In his article "Adaptation" in the Italian
Enciclopedia Einaudi, and in a modified version for
Scientific American, he emphasized the need to give an engineering characterization of adaptation separate from measurement of number of offspring, rather than simply assuming organs or organisms are at adaptive optima. Lewontin said that his more general, technical criticism of
adaptationism grew out of his recognition that the fallacies of
sociobiology reflect fundamentally flawed assumptions of adaptiveness of all traits in much of the
modern evolutionary synthesis. Lewontin accused neo-Darwinists of telling
Just-So Stories when they try to show how natural selection explains such novelties as long-necked
giraffes.
Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology Along with others, such as Gould, Lewontin was a persistent critic of some themes in
neo-Darwinism. Specifically, he criticized proponents of
sociobiology and
evolutionary psychology, such as Edward O. Wilson and
Richard Dawkins, who attempt to explain animal behaviour and social structures in terms of evolutionary advantage or strategy. He and others criticize this approach when applied to humans, as he sees it as
genetic determinism. In his writing, Lewontin suggests a more nuanced view of evolution is needed, which requires a more careful understanding of the context of the whole organism as well as the environment. Such concerns about what he viewed as the oversimplification of genetics led Lewontin to be a frequent participant in debates, and an active life as a public intellectual. He lectured widely to promote his views on evolutionary biology and science. In the book
Not in Our Genes (co-authored with
Steven Rose and
Leon J. Kamin) and numerous articles, Lewontin questioned much of the claimed
heritability of human behavioral traits, such as
intelligence as measured by
IQ tests. Some academics have criticized him for rejecting
sociobiology for non-scientific reasons. Edward Wilson (1995) suggested that Lewontin's political beliefs affected his scientific view; Richard Dawkins (2004) described Lewontin's "political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity". Lewontin at times identified himself as
Marxist, and asserted that his philosophical views have bolstered his scientific work.
History of science Robert E. Rosenwein criticised Lewontin's assertion made in
The Dialectical Biologist that the history of evolutionary biology is connected to sociocultural justification for the success of the bourgeois class. Calling Lewontin's claims "facile" and "glib", Rosenwein stated that Lewontin never explained or drew a direct, causal connection between how the rise and evolution of capitalism related to developments in the biological sciences.
Agribusiness Lewontin has written on the economics of
agribusiness. He has contended that
hybrid corn was developed and propagated not because of its superior quality, but because it allowed agribusiness corporations to force farmers to buy new seed each year rather than plant seed produced by their previous crop of corn (Lewontin 1982). Lewontin testified in an unsuccessful suit in California challenging the state's financing of research to develop automatic tomato pickers. This favored the profits of agribusiness over the employment of farm workers (Lewontin 2000). ==Personal life==