Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas - 348 | Jessica Riskin on Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Life as Creative Agency

Episode Date: March 23, 2026

"Lamarkism" is a term often attached to a seemingly discredited idea in evolutionary biology: that one organism could acquire characteristics (e.g., becoming stronger through exercise) that would then be inherited by its descendants. This is a different story than the one ultimately told by the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, according to which inheritance passes through our genome (which doesn't know that we've been working out). In her book The Power of Life: The Invention of Biology and the Revolutionary Science of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, historian of science Jessica Riskin argues that this picture is too simple, and that Lamarck made contributions we should still pay attention to: most significantly, the idea that organisms have a creative agency of their own, in addition to the influences of the outside world. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code MINDSCAPE at this link and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/mindscape #sponsored   Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/03/23/348-jessica-riskin-on-jean-baptiste-lamarck-and-life-as-creative-agency/ Support Mindscape on Patreon. Jessica Riskin received her Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Berkeley. She is currently the Frances and Charles Field Professor of History at Stanford University. Among her awards are the Patrick Suppes Prize in the History of Science and the J. Russell Major Award for French history. Her books include The Restless Clock and Genesis Redux, and she is a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. Web page New York Review of Books contributor page Amazon author page Wikipedia

There's a lot of data about you scattered around the internet. Some of it you probably don't want to be out there, including your address, phone number, or social security number. Incogni is here to help. With your code Minescape, you can get a 60% discount on an annual Incogni plan. Incogni is a service that tracks down and removes your personal data from multiple sites across the web, not just the malicious leaks on the dark web, but online directories, search sites, and commercial databases. It's not just about receiving less spam. although that is a nice benefit,

is about protecting yourself from scams and identity theft. The Incogni service has both an automated component, where they search for your data and get it removed, but also a custom removal feature. If you find your info, somewhere you don't want it to be, you can let Incogni know, and a dedicated privacy expert will handle it for you. An Incogni subscription model includes continuous monitoring in the background

to ensure your digital footprint stays clean for the long term. I've been using the service for several months now, and you wouldn't believe how many times my name appears in easily available records online, or how much peace of mind it confers once it is removed. So take your personal data back with Incogni. Go to incogni.com slash Mindscape to get 60% off an annual plan using code Minescape. That's 60% off at I-N-C-O-G-N-I.com slash Minescape. Incogny, they can't harm you if they can't find you. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law, not available in all states.

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Mindscape podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. There's kind of a pattern that we, each individually go through when we learn something about science, some aspect of how the natural world works. First, we start by looking at the world, and we know that it looks very complicated. Later, we learn that there's this brilliant scientific insight that actually simplifies our description of the world. And we're very happy because we have this compact, austere, powerful formalism that can explain so much. And then we realized that actually that really simple, powerful formalism gets complicated a little bit, either intrinsically complicated when we want to include more things, or just complicated because applying it to the real world is a little bit trickier than we originally thought.

So Newtonian mechanics was an enormous simplification. You know, if you read about Aristotle or other degrees of other ways of thinking about physics back in the day, there was a lot going on. It wasn't clear what was biology, what was physics, etc. And then through the work of many, many generations of smart people, we learned to start by ignoring air resistance and friction, and Galileo showed us how to do these experiments to really isolate the simple essence of it. And we culminated in Newtonian mechanics in an extraordinarily powerful theory of the world. And then we learn later, when we as individuals learn about Newtonian mechanics, it gets complicated. because there is friction in the real world, and there is quantum mechanics and relativity and things like that. So this pattern of enormous complexity being simplified and then maybe a little bit complicated again is true both for individuals learning science,

but also for science as a field learning about the world. Another aspect besides physics is, of course, biology, evolutionary biology. There was a lot of work done for thousands of years, in thinking about the different kinds of species that existed, eventually realizing that they changed over time, they evolved in the broadest possible sense. And then Darwin, of course, made a huge leap forward with natural selection. And there was ultimately, in the 20th century,

the modern synthesis, where we glued together modern genetics with Darwinian natural selection. And we really had an extraordinarily powerful view of the nature and origin of species. But then things became complicated again. And these days, you know, the frontier work is in pointing out that our individual genetic inheritance is not just the specific genome that we get in the nuclei of our cells from the DNA that we inherit from our parents. But also there are epigenetic factors. There are chemicals that work to express certain genes rather than others. We inherit mitochondrial DNA, as well as the nuclear DNA.

We inherit aspects of our microbiome from our mothers and things like that. And not to mention that there are influences of culture on the biology that we have, because certain genes are going to be passed down and certain ones are not. So we're making the story a little bit more complicated again. And at that moment when we were simplifying it the most in evolutionary biology, it was interesting and fun to contrast the view that we had of evolutionary biology with what could have been and was shown to be wrong. And in this case, one of the villains of the conventional story was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who was a predecessor of Darwin, who came up with a theory of evolution, but one that was not based on random mutation and sexual selection, but rather and sexual mixing, I should say, of your genetic inheritance, but rather inheritance of acquired characteristics.

So a giraffe in Lamarck's theory would have a neck growing for longer and longer because generations of giraffes would be straining to reach the leaves on the tops of the trees. And from all that straining, not only would the individual giraffe get a longer neck, but it would be able to pass down that longer neck to its descendants. This story from Lamarck was not part of the modern synthesis of Darwinian natural selection, where you just had a genome. It was just randomly mixed up by mutation and, of course, father-mother sexual mixing and things like that. It was not, you know, an effort that went into creating the features of future generation. So that was laughed at, that Lamarckian idea.

Today's guest, Jessica Riskin, is a historian of science, and she wants to kind of rehabilitate Lamarck a little bit. Not all the way, like certainly not overturning anything Darwin said and replacing it with what Lamarck said, but she points out that Darwin himself really agreed with many of Lamarck's ideas, and many of these very recent modifications of the standard Darwinian synthesis have a certain Lamarckian flavor. But I think that what she's mostly after is a shift of emphasis, not just specific scientific ideas, but Lamarck was a champion of the idea that organisms, living beings, were not designed by either an intelligent designer or just by the external forces of nature. But that inside individual organisms, the organisms themselves played a role in creating who they were and maybe even who their ancestors would be. I think it's that sort of change of emphasis that Jessica is more about than anything else.

And the wonderful story with all the historical anecdotes and all the biographical details is told in her new book called the Power of Life, the Invention of Biology, and the Revolutionary Science of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. And it has implications, not just for this particular historical event, but for how we think about how science is done and how we think about how we human beings live in the broader natural world. So let's go. Jessica Riskin, welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Now, you've written a book, The Power of Life, about a controversial figure in the history of biology. But I thought that it would be fun to actually start talking about a previous book you've written

that both sort of overlaps even more obviously with my own interests, but also leads into your second book. So the first book was The Restless Clock, a year. history of the centuries-long argument over what makes living things tick. And like all those words sound great to me and I love them, but maybe why don't you try to explain to the audience what the book was about? Sure. Yes. And in fact, the Lamarck book comes directly out of that earlier book. So the restless clock was really about a sort of a struggle that I see as having taken place in the life sciences and the history of biology between two competing models of a living being. According to one model, a living being is a kind of designed machine that has been

designed in a certain way and functions in that way. It's the object of outside forces. In the first instance, in the 17th century, those outside forces were a designer god. And in the modern neo-Darwinist version of it, the outside forces are natural selection. But in either case, the the organism is this kind of machine that is fairly passive. The competing tradition is one that I think of as active mechanism in which the organism is itself self-making and self-transforming and constantly redesigning itself rather than being just acted upon from outside. And so the restless clock traces the struggle between those two competing models of a

living being from the 17th century. pretty much up to the present, anyway, up through the 20th century. And when I got to the end of writing that book, I sort of realized that Lamarck should have been huge in that book because he really is the hero of the active mechanist tradition. You know, he really is the hero, the champion of the idea of the creative agency of living organisms. And so I got sort of to me, he's in there a little bit, but I was sort of in the final stages of writing that book

and I just thought, you know, this book should have been about Lamarck, but I cannot. I had taken so long writing the book. I was like, I can't start over again. I can't go back and rewrite this book. And so then I just thought, oh, well, I'll give him his own book. I'll just have to give him his own book. So that's how I got.

That's how I got. Out of the process. That's how good author thinks. That's great. So I think it's fascinating how our metaphors for our sense, and for life and whatever, are always responding to the culture around us. Like, basically, you seem to be saying that in the beginning of the

Enlightenment, when machines and automata first came on the scene, instantly a certain segment of people said, oh, we're like that. And a certain other set of people resisted a little bit. Yeah, that's right. I mean, one of the things, one of the kind of discoveries of working on the Russell's Clockbook is that, you know, there were, there were automatic machines, automata and hydraulic organs and clocks and all kinds of things all around the early modern European world in churches and in wealthy states and things.

And so part of the fun of writing that book was to go around and I actually went and visited some of these machines. I went to Salzburg and I saw these extraordinary automata that would, you know, gargoyles that would stick out their tongue and a chair that you would sit in and it would grab you and stuff like that. I actually went there with my son who's now, you know, this was a while ago. So he was a little boy at the time. And he was completely enthralled by this. And I realized, you know, that these machines have been entertaining small children and

other people for centuries, you know. And so these machines were everywhere. And people did indeed in the 17th century start trying to think. So Descartes, the French. philosopher Descartes lived for a time near the French royal palace at Saint-Germain-en-en-Lé. And there were lots of these grottoes, hydraulic grottoes. They were kind of arranged in this kind of neogothic way. And so he probably, I don't know, we don't know, he probably visited them and he describes them in his writing.

And Descartes, of course, is the great theorist of, you know, living by. as machinery. So, yeah, people were trying to think in these terms about what a living being, an animal or a human could be. And I'll just add one more thing, which is that I had a PhD student a few years ago, now teaching at St. John's College, Hallie Barnett, his name is, he did a beautiful dissertation, which I hope is on its way into being published as a book, which is called homo-musicus. And it's about how people in the 18th century used musical instruments as models of living beings. They, in the way that we use information machinery, we use computers.

They use clavichords and harpsichords and, you know, cellos, vibrating strings and and all of that. So, yes, exactly. We draw on the machines or the models that are around us. So don't be disturbed about the dog barking in the background. The audience loves that. We're not going to edit that out. We're going to leave that in there.

My dog. But so, I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But let me just say, I could put her in the car, though. No, no, no, that would be, we love the dog in the whatever. It adds a little bit of reality to it. That's how we know you're not AI. Actually, it's probably not because you could probably trick that into the AI. But maybe I'm wrong about when these kinds of machines did appear on the scene.

Were they around before the 17th century, the similar kinds of machines? Mechanical clocks had been around for some centuries before the 17th century. You know, high middle, they date back to the high middle age. ages, I think, you know, 13th, 14th century, maybe 14th century. And then another sort of important development was the camshaft, you know, the barrel with pegs sticking out of it. Like you see in a music box, you see a miniature version of that, a little barrel with pins that trigger a sequence of motions, you know, the pegs trigger levers that attach to other things. And so you see some of these quite elaborate, um, uh,

automata governed, programmed by camshafts in the early 17th century, turn of the 16th to 17th century. There are some quite extraordinary. I have some beautiful designs in there, for example, a host of birds, like a bunch of little figures of birds that are flittering and twittering, and then an owl that is pivoting towards them. And the whole thing, you see the design for it. This is a design by a French engineer named Isaac de Kuse. and you see he has a drawing of this.

You see the camshaft turning and the peg sticking out of it and triggering valves in a set of pipes and the whole thing is being run by a water wheel. And so as the camshaft is turning, the birds are twittering, the owl is turning towards them. When he faces the birds, the mechanism is braked, so they freeze. And as it goes away again, they start fluttering and twittering. So these are, you know, the programming device.

of the early modern period camshafts and they there's a direct line of development from those to automatic looms which are mid 18th century the first designs for automatic looms that that you know that the cams triggered the raising and lowering of of warp threads or is it the woof I guess it's I can't remember which is the warp and which is the I'm not going to provide any help on this one and and to punch cards the first Punch cards were in automatic looms. And then Charles Babbage, the early 19th century English mathematician and inventor, designed his mechanical calculating engines, the analytical engine and the difference engine, on the model of the automatic looms.

And so you can see this kind of continuous line of development from early modern camshafts through automatic looms, through punch cards through, of course, modern computing. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name-your-price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates.

Price and coverage match limited by state law, not available in all states. With markets changing and living costs rising, finding a reliable place to grow your money matters now more than ever. In the wealth front cash account, your uninvested cash can earn up to 3.95% APY. That's a 0.65% boost over an already high rate for three months, just for being a new client. There are no monthly account fees or minimums, and you get free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts 24-7. So you always have access to your money when you need it. And when you're ready to invest, you can transfer your cash to one of Wealthfront's expert built portfolios in just minutes.

More than 1 million people already use Wealthfront to save and build wealth with confidence. Get started today at Wealthfront.com. 3.3% base APY via program banks has up January 30th, 2026. It is representative variable requires no minimum and is earned on funds swept to program banks. Instant withdrawal subject to conditions boosted $150,000, cash account offered by wealth front brokerage LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principle investment advisory services provided by wealth front advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. And am I right in my wild speculation that this technological development did influence the idea that people could be understood along

similar lines as machines? I think absolutely. Yeah. I think, you know, I'll go back to Descartes, who, again, you know, he was the kind of major theorist of the idea that you could understand living beings in the way that you understand clockwork, artificial mechanical devices. And I think, yes, I mean, he looked around himself and he tells stories of visiting these hydraulic grottoes where you step into the grotto and, like, there's a figure of a Diana or some goddess who flees when you step in, that the fact that the automata seemed to respond to one another and to visitors. To him, he sort of, he really emphasizes that, that they, that they seem like they're engaging

and responding. And so it's not that he thought that, you know, I think it's not that he thought that they, that animals or people genuinely were clockwork, but that you could. try to understand animal and human machinery in comparable terms in terms of material parts. And I think the fact that he saw these machines all around certainly encouraged that. And so try to make it clear for us what the other option is. Like, look, I'm a physicist at heart. I understand when you say, like, okay, there's machines and they're made of pieces and they obey laws and they come together to make a bigger thing.

What is the sort of more romantic, agentic alternative to that? Well, first of all, I can start with the older tradition. I mean, so traditionally, kind of according to an Aristotelian picture of living things, they have, Aristotle described three different kinds of souls. So he said that plants have a vegetative soul that causes them to grow. animals have a vegetative soul and a sensitive soul that causes them to grow and sense and then people have a vegetative soul, a sensitive soul,

and a rational soul so that they can grow, they can sense, and they can reason. And Descartes got rid of two of the three souls. He said, really, there's no such thing as an animal, a vegetative soul or a sensitive soul. Those are just, he says basically you can call them souls if you want, but I see those as substances.

And the only soul that he retained was the rational soul in human human beings. beings. So, and then in the 18th century, very kind of much more thoroughgoing materialists, not dualists like Descartes, but people like the French philosopher, La Maitre, or Diderot, a lot of mid-18th century French people got rid of the rational soul. They basically said, okay, you took it some of the way. Let's now take it the rest of the way and get rid of the rational soul to everything should be describable in terms of moving parts. parts. But then there are various different possibilities for these moving parts. Have they been

put together by some outside force and they just tick, tick, tick, tick function the way, you know, the way a clock maker makes a clock? Or are they themselves changing and transforming and recreating themselves? And how did they come to be in this extraordinary organization that is a living thing? Did they just, did it happen all at once by someone arranging them or did they arrange themselves. And so that's the big conflict, the big struggle. And you have, in this period, the argument from design. This is a kind of 17th century, you know, the first people who made the argument from design, people like John Ray, the English theologian, Robert Boyle, English chemist, physicist and theologian. It's a 17th century idea. And what they said was you can

demonstrate the existence of a kind of designer god, rational, omnipotent being from the evidence of mechanical design and nature. And so they got very, very interested in these kind of very minute considerations of mechanisms like the mechanism of eye or an insect, tiny, minute investigations of the appearance of design and nature. And that tradition culminated with William Paley, in the beginning of the 19th century, who famously said, you know, his very famous version of the argument from design is if you're crossing a heath and your foot hits a rock, you might think, well, that rock just has always been there. Who knows how that got there. But if your foot hits a watch, you know that there has to be a watchmaker somewhere around. That was his version. But what's interesting about that is that it assumes passivity on the part of the watch, right? I mean, it assumes it's just kind of lying there like a rock to be kicked inside. What if it yelped and scuttled away? That would be a very different matter. Then you might not necessarily think there's a watchmaker. You might think somehow that watch got there on its own volition, right? And so that's the competing model that culminates with Lamarck, is the idea

that, and already people like the ones I mentioned, La Maitre and Didro and other kind of mid-18th century Frenchmen who were very rigorous naturalizers and kind of materialists, they already had been trying to imagine a way that these living mechanisms could have come to be gradually over time in a

internal self-made way not by having an order outside but by gradually transforming many, many, many generations. They began also to think

into deep time as kind of deep abyss of time. And Lamarck comes at the end of that active mechanists of trying to imagine how these living machines

could have made themselves. I think that's super helpful. because I think I did misunderstand a little bit the distinction. I mean, it's hard to get out of one's own location in space and time, and I sort of associate a kind of mechanistic, naturalistic, physicalist point of view with one of your options and a more romantic, theological, magical point of view with the other one. But you're making the point, I think it's completely true historically,

that it was the people who thought of living beings as machines that were more, theological about it, that we're using that to prove the existence of God. Exactly. Oh, I'm so glad you said. That's exactly my point, is that, right, Lamarck and the others in tradition get a reputation being sort of woo-woo, you know, mystical. And nothing could be farther from the truth. It's the exact opposite. These are the people who wanted to not make any appeal to a supernatural God. And so they were trying to imagine, how it could happen from within without appeal to a supernatural god. And it was the, you know, the kind of very mechanist engineer kind of model, people who are

advocating that kind of engineering model of a way of studying living machinery. Those were the people who, that tradition emerged from the argument from design. It came out of a theology. And so the way I think I sort of think of it shorthand is that I think that Richard Dawkins, ironically is the heir to William Paley. Right. He doesn't see it that way, but I think that's really the case. Well, and I guess if you're going to, it does make sense in retrospect, right?

Because you're saying that if you really analogize living beings to machines, machines in our experiences are designed by somebody outside. And so that kind of goes hand in hand. And if the real distinction is, are the changes, and evolution and agency coming from within us or from outside, then it's the external point of view that's going to go along both with the machine metaphor and with the argument from design. Yeah, exactly, exactly.

It's interesting that Charles Darwin, you know, he kind of later in life reminisced about having, when he was a student at Cambridge, he memorized Paley. He said he could basically recite Paley from memory. And you can sort of hear it in his prose. He's a very, very beautiful, I think a beautiful writer, Charles Darwin, a really beautiful kind of stylist of the English language. But it kind of resonates, it echoes a little bit, Paley. And yet he said, you know, so I'm basically taking Paley and getting rid of God and replacing God with natural selection.

I mean, Darwin didn't put it that way. I should hasten to say he was very, very careful always to tell people that they don't have to choose between God and Darwin. The two are compatible. but nevertheless, I think his idea was that he could put natural selection in the spot where Paley had got. And the problem with that is that the model of what a living thing is sort of has a kind of supernaturalism built into it. You know, if you really think that the organism is totally passive, then where, then it suggests that the agency is somewhere else. It kind of outsources it to an external god. And, you know, Darwin, but another thing I want to, though, emphasize is that Darwin didn't fully adopt that model.

He partly adopted Paley's model with natural selection playing the role of God, but he also adopted Lamarck's model. And that's something that I think cannot be emphasized enough because everybody nowadays represents them as opposites. But Darwin was a Lamarckian in a very important sense. He adopted Lamarck's idea of what we now call the inheritance of acquired characteristics, the idea that an organism, a living being, changes itself through its behaviors in teeny, tiny, infinitesimal ways. Then those are inherited by its offspring, and you add together those infinitesimal changes thousands of generations, and you get like the giraffe's long neck. Darwin never questioned that. It's in every addition of the origin of species.

He called it the inherited effects of use and disuse. And it's in every addition of the origin of species. It's in the descent of man. It's in everything he ever wrote. He believed that. So I see him as very torn between the Paley passive model and the Lamarck active model. And he's torn and struggling with that problem. Good.

So the real distinction in some sense that you want to draw, I'm just trying to get it into my head because I am very embedded in these modern debates, is the self-creation of who you are by the organisms not just being shaped by external forces. in the first book, in the restless clock. Yeah, that's right. I mean, the restless clock is really about that struggle between active and passive mechanism, between those two models of what a living being is. And it seems to me that the neo-Darwinist tradition,

you know, not Darwin himself, but the neo-Darwinist tradition, as I say, you know, are the heirs to Paley. They carry on that passive model. And Lamarck sort of, the active, mechanism model has been largely banished from mainstream science for, you know, over 100 years. And I think there are really interesting reasons for that. There are kind of, there's a politics to it.

In the first instance in the later 19th century, I think it had to do with leaving room for an omnipotent god sort of out there behind the scenes. So Darwin was acutely conscious that Lamarckism had this. ill odor of radicalism and revolution, regicide, atheism. Because Lamarck had developed his theories during French Revolution and published them sort of in the midst of all of that. And actually, Charles Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had come up with similar ideas. He was a doctor and a naturalist Erasmus Darwin. And he had a similar idea to Lamarck's of transformation of living forms from generation to generation, but he didn't develop it into a systematic theory the way Lamarck did.

But Erasmus Darwin also, he was a poet, he expressed a lot of his ideas in poetry, he was a romantic, and he was a political radical, he was very admiring of the French revolutionaries. And so Charles Darwin, you know, had this kind of, he was a little embarrassed, he was a little worried about all of this, you know, radical, romantic, dangerous aura to his ideas. And so he was very careful, as I say, to insist that you didn't have to choose between God and Darwin. But I think as you move through the 19th century, increasingly, you know, Darwin's followers have the idea that if they want to sort of, for Darwinism and evolutionary theory to kind of really persuade people and be very successful, that they have to kind of do something about this problem. You know, they have to make it seem sober and not dangerous in this way. And so they eradicated all traces of Lamarckian inheritance, what Darwin called the inherited effects of use and disuse.

His followers got rid of that very adamantly, especially a German Darwinist, evolutionist named August Weissmann. And he carried out these experiments that have become very famous that you may have heard of with mice. Do you know the Weissman's mouse experiments? Let's assume I do not know that one. I know it because I looked in your book, but tell me what it is. Yeah, so he chopped the tails off mice, he did this for several generations, and he showed that the tails, that the offspring of the mice had perfectly normal tails. He himself knew that this was really not a refutation of Lamarck or Darwin,

because neither of them had said that amputations were inherited. Both of them had believed that organisms transformed themselves from within, by their habits, by their behaviors, not that an amputation would be inherited. That would be a very different thing. And Weissmann knew that perfectly well, and he even said that. But he said, you know, this will refute the popular version of belief in inheritance of acquired characteristics. It was really sort of a gimmick.

But it was extraordinarily powerful, and people still have that in textbooks, biology textbooks, as a refutation of Lamarckian inheritance. And so, yeah, so from the end of the 19th century, turn of the 20th century, you see a neo-Darwinist theory emerge in which Lamarckian inheritance is absolutely banished, there's no inheritance acquired characteristics, and there's a lot of insistence on the absolute and utter passivity of the organism. And people actually kind of make a slide from evolutionary passivity to behavioral passivity. You know, you begin to see that animals are just the vehicles of their,

well, we haven't gotten to genes until the middle of the 20th century, but that kind of slide from evolutionary behavioral passivity is already taking place, and then by the time you get to the mid-20th century, it's that animals are just the vehicles of their genes. From the writers of parenthood and life as we know it comes, it's not like that. A new family drama about starting over and second chances. Scott Foley stars as Malcolm, a recently widowed pastor and dad of three.

And Aaron Hayes is Lori, newly divorced with two teens. Their families used to do everything, Now they're navigating single-parenthood and maybe something more. Watch It's Not Like That, All episodes streaming May 15th on Prime Video. Well, I mean, your new book, The Power of Life is a combination of science and history and biography. So I did want a chance to give you a chance to do the biography part. I mean, tell us about this guy, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Who is he?

What if he'd never heard of him before? Where is he born? What did he do? Okay, yes, thank you. So he was born in 1744 in Picardy in northern France, and he was the 11th and youngest child and fourth son of a family from the military nobility. But they were sort of a family, you know, their funds were dwindling already. And by the time they got around to Lamarck, they had already spent all of their money on his older brother's military career. It was very expensive to launch a military career.

And so Lamarck had to be at age 11, sent off to study for the priesthood, and he really hated that idea. He didn't want to be a priest. And when his father died a few years later, he said, that's it, I won't be a priest. And he went galloping off on one of his mother's old horses to join a regiment that was fighting in the seven years war in Central Europe. Then he was a soldier for a while. Then he had to leave the military. So, Georges Cuvier, who was Lamarck's arch enemy. also funny story had the job of writing his eulogy so-called eulogy it's the worst nastiest

meanest eulogy you've ever seen but he kind of nastily insinuated that lamark had been lifted by the head by one of his fellow soldiers and you know they were horsing around and anyway he had some kind of neck injury and so he left the military meanwhile he had fallen in love with wildflowers his regiment had been garrisoned in provence and he had fallen in love with wildflowers and decided he wanted to be a botanist and so often he went to Paris to be a botanist. And for a while he was a botanist. Shall I keep going?

Oh, yes, I love it. So he was studying botany in Paris, but also he was living in a Garrett apartment right up under the roof, a poor student. And so all he could see were clouds. And so he started also

studying clouds. And he became the first person to name the clouds, to categorize. He was a very tidy sort of guy. He liked to taxonomize. He ended up naming over 6,000 species of animals and vertebrates and other living species. But he also taxonomized the clouds and named them and ultimately set up the first government weather bureau. He developed a science of meteorology and set up the first government weather bureau. But where was I?

So he was studying botany and he caught the interest of Georges Buffon, who was an extraordinarily prolific naturalist and well-connected guy who was the direct. of the Royal Botanical Garden and made Lamarque his protege. And that was all very excellent for a while. But then in 1788, Buffon died. 1789 was the revolution. Everything was thrown into total turmoil. Lamarck helps to shepherd the garden through the revolution and even to build a new museum of natural history in the heart of it.

But when it came time to give professorships in this new Museum of Natural History, he was not allowed to have a botany professorship because the botanists who were already in place in the garden didn't want him to. And so in the end, he had to take the lowliest of the zoology professorships, which was the professorship in insects and worms. He became professor of insects and worms in the garden. And I initially wanted to call my book the professor of insects and worms because I thought that would be a novel title. But my editor didn't like that title. I think your title is better than the one. I mean, the title you have now is fine, but a professor of insects and worms.

would have been better. It's even better, I think. But because it really struck me when I was leaving through the book, you know, I suppose we have a similar thing now with very highly specialized microbiology professor, or whatever. But back then, you could be like the professor of mollusks or something like that. It was just like a wonderful set of specializations that people could have. Yeah.

Yeah. Actually, he renamed it. So he was professor of insects and worms, which was Linnaeus' ginormous category. of all insects and worms, but it included mollusks, interestingly. And mollusks were worms, according to that. And it was Lamarck who coined the term invertebrates. Right. That was his coinage.

And so he renamed his designated creatures. Invertebrate biology sounds better than Professor of Insects and Worms. Okay, but this is all, so this is, by the end of the French Revolution, we've gotten up to you now. We are, yes, we are sort of, in. Well, at the moment when he became Professor of Insects and Worms, it was right embroiled in the midst of the French Revolution. And then he survived that, and Napoleon came in, you know, made himself emperor, et cetera. And Napoleon hated Lamarck. He was really, he loathed Lamarck and Lamarck's science.

He was the one who shut down Lamarck's Weather Bureau and really tried to undermine him at every turn. There's a story that told by the, ah, astronomer, so this is in your life. line, Francois Arago, he was a young man at the time that this story took place, but he told the story that in 1809, when Lamarck published his magnum opus, the philosophies zoologic, the zoological philosophy, where he presents his theory of evolution for the first time to the world, that he and Aragogne were among all of the members of the National Institute waiting nervously in a salon of the palace, of the Twilery's Palace, waiting to present their work in Napoleon. and Napoleon finally came sweeping in and marched up to Aragogh and said, you're very young, what's your name? And, you know, Arague had a kind of awkward exchange where everybody was trying to answer for him. And then he turned to Lamarck and said, you know, what is that you're holding? And he snatched Lamarck's book.

And he kind of thrust it into the hands of an aide and said, you know, this is basically nonsense. Your work is all nonsense. and poor Lamarck was reduced to tears of humiliation. And so famously, he had to weather the scorn and loathing of Napoleon. And all of Napoleon's inner-circled, Cuvier and everybody. Was that story the first interaction between them? My question is, why does the Emperor of France keep track of the professors of insects and worms? That doesn't seem to be the kind of thing going on now.

Oh, but he was. He was very interested in science. And very closely, you know, so it wouldn't have been their first exchange, I don't think. I mean, he knew. So Napoleon had this close kind of inner circle of scientists who included George Cuvier, who was the paleontologist, and Laplace, the astronomer and mathematician, Laplace, and Foucée, a chemist. And they, all of them, hated LeMarc.

And so this was already in full swing. And there are various reasons for that. I mean, I think one thing is that Cuvier was a devout Lutheran. He rejected transformism, you know, evolution. He absolutely rejected it. Another reason is that Napoleon certainly didn't like this participatory meteorological program. He was not into participatory. Napoleon was into top down.

And then the last thing I'll just say about that is that I think it also had to do with the substance of Lamarck's theory. that his theory was all about distributing creative agency and transformational power all throughout the living world. And again, Napoleon was not interested in that. He wanted to control nature, control the living world. He didn't want to learn all about how it transforms and reshapes itself. So I think it was not a congenial theory to Napoleon. It also, you know, Napoleon was trying to court the monarchists and the idea of this kind of atheistic sounding theory. was bad, you know, bad PR. There were various, I think it was overdetermined, but certainly Napoleon was not a fan of

Well, that was another question I had because, you know, sometimes, again, all of us can't help but project our current concerns onto these long ago battles. So sometimes you read, like, that this or that scientific theory, encountered resistance from priests and theologians because it was thought to be against whatever doctrine they held. And I always wonder whether that was actually a big deal at the time or whether people now are projecting the fact that it should have been a big deal given the implications of these scientific theories. But I guess what I'm hearing from you is it kind of was a big deal in the moment. Well, yeah, it's a really good question because I think you're absolutely right about that.

So, for example, I teach a course on the scientific revolution where I talk about it. Galileo and Copernicanism. And there's a really good example of just exactly what you're saying, which is people assume because they know that, often people know that Galileo was condemned by the inquisition of heresy, and they assume that Copernicanism was in trouble with the church from the beginning. But nothing could be farther from the truth. Copernicus was a church canon doing church business.

He was trying to come up with a plan for calendar reform. The church was very, very worried about calculating, dates of feast days like Easter, Easter, which is the first full moon after the first Sunday after the Vernal Equinox. So you have to correlate solar and lunar calendars. And it was a mess.

People were celebrating Easter all over Christendom at the wrong times, different times. And so Copernicus was a church canon working on a church problem. And in fact, the Catholic Church was like the NSF of early modern Europe. They funded, you know, especially in astronomy,

but in various areas. And so it's really an interesting thing. I mean, it was never, was not necessarily the case that the church was going to condemn Copernicanism. And it happened in a kind of complicated way with Galileo. You know, that's a story for another day. But it's just, that's an excellent example of what you're describing, you know, that people assume that there would have been a conflict, but there wasn't necessarily. So in the case of Lamarck, what's interesting is that in the middle of the 18th century in France, there was this moment of sort of rigorous naturalism

and a kind of materialism and in that moment it was plenty of people were coming up with there was plenty of anti-clericalism plenty of criticisms of the church and that was happening right but then you have this kind of reactionary moment in the 19th century

under Napoleon and following as you go deeper into the 19th century and so it's also not the case that it's uniformed that there's a uniform form progress toward greater and greater secularism over time. There are these kind of, there's a complicated history to these sorts of things. And the final thing I'll say is that, you know, I was mentioning that Charles Darwin was very concerned about, you know, insisting that his theory was compatible with religious faith.

And, but in fact, it didn't, it really, the conflict between Darwinian evolution and the church really came to a head, for the most part, not immediately in England in the 9th. 19th century, but in America, in the 1920s, there's a kind of delay and a removal of that conflict to America. So, yeah, it's a very complicated and fascinating history of relations between science and the church and various church authorities. But if we're trying to sort of think about what it was like to live back then, I mean, is it at least safe to say that there seems to be more connection between the highest levels of scientific and intellectual theorizing and the highest levels of power politically in a way that maybe there isn't today.

But maybe I'm wrong. Oh, yes. I mean, well, certainly not today. I mean, Napoleon was, as I say, he was very, very interested in science and very, you know, he kind of, I think, had the sense that modern scientific authority and power and modern political authority and power went right together. You know, he went off to Egypt with all of his scientific retent. knew and he wanted them to be doing science there.

And so he really had the sense that the two went together, that this was the kind of supreme modern political authority would be grounded in a kind of natural science. I think Napoleon certainly believed that. But I would say that, you know, often I talk about how in this science of a revolution class, about how the modern partnership between science and government really began to take shape at the end of the 17th century with the founding of institutions like the Royal Society of London or the French National Academy of Sciences. And then you see that relationship developing.

And I think right now in the United States of America, for the first time when I teach this material, I have to say to students, that modern partnership seems to be possibly at an end or any way under threat in a way that I absolutely didn't foresee. So what we see now is kind of stunning. There was just a piece in today's, was it today, maybe it was in the Sunday paper, actually, about the destruction of science in America. Yeah, that was in your time.

That was bipartisan. The idea that science and the state need each other was totally bipartisan. Well, we do tend to think that the conditions we're in right now are eternal and we project them both to the past into the future, but it just is never true in either direction. So it's hard to predict. But okay, anyway, thank you very much for these digressions.

They're exactly why we're here, and I love them. But let's get back to Jean-Baptiste-Lamark, and we haven't yet had him come up with his influential theory. Right. Okay, so his theory, let's see, where shall I start? So the book is called The Power of Life, instead of the Professor of Insects and Worms. But that phrase, that's his phrase,

Le Puevoire de la Vie, the Power of Life. He uses that phrase to name a force that he thought was entrenched, to living matter that caused it to complexify, just that, right? And so it was sort of equivalent to the forces of contemporary physics, which were full of tendencies like electricity follows a conductor, people were very interested in studying that in that moment. Gravity causes common matter to tend downward toward the center of the earth, you know, magnetized objects attract or repel.

So he was, the Puevo de de Vee, if the power of life maybe sounds, again, it may be has a woo-woo sort of sound to it, but in fact what he meant was a very material force like the forces in contemporary physics. And what he thought was that it all begins with spontaneous generation, with forces like heat or electricity acting on inanimate matter, causing a spontaneous generation of the very, very, very simplest forms of life, single-celled organism called monads and algae. And then from that moment, the power of life takes over, causing it flexify, sort of ever outward, complexify and ramify.

And then as living forms get more and more complex, they begin responding to the environment. And they respond, the forms of life respond in very rudimentary ways. But he says, as they become more and more complex, these species, they respond in more and more sophisticated ways until you get to the level of birds and mammals. The level of birds and mammals respond by acts of will,

by forming habits in response to their circumstances, like the giraffe, stretched, neck, tie up leaves. That's the example of one knows from Lamarck. And those acts of will, those habits, those behaviors cause tiny changes that then get inherited and added together over many generations. And you get dramatic structures, but over a kind of well of time. And then there's one more thing I'll say about this, which is that Lamarck thought that living organisms were not,

just creating and transforming themselves, but that they were also creating the inanimate world around them. He basically said living things are the only creative forces in the world. So he's seizing God's monopoly on creation and reassigning it to living being. And they're the only creative things in the world, and they are creating the inanimate world around them. And he says, I don't really know how the whole thing started. But what I know is, you know, animal, vegetable mineral, what came first. But what I do know is that in the world we see, the kind of mineral structure of the world is formed by living beings and the things they make, like, you know, the white cliffs of Dover are made of organisms and, you know, continents and coastlines are shaped by living beings. So he described not only living beings creating and transforming themselves, but also the inanimate world around them.

Which in some sense you can't argue with, right? We do shape our environments. And indeed, like, part of what you're saying kind of sounds, and we'll probably get there in a bit, but it sounds like modern theories of biological, cultural co-evolution, where, you know, ideas can shape our biology and vice versa. Absolutely. So, well, one thing is that I started, you know, I tried to find out what current geologists think about this. And I, you know, talked with some people and tried to read some papers in geology. And it seems to me that there is a lot of interest in role of living beings in forming the surface mineralogy of the earth, really. So there was, you know, the great oxidation event that took place with the first living organisms that ceded the atmosphere with oxygen. And without that oxygen, you wouldn't have the same minerals. And so that's one, you know, example. But I think that, yeah, in today's geology and kind of Earth sciences, there is a great deal of interest in exactly that, the role of living organisms.

And I think actually also exobiology or exogeology people who study the idea of life on planet. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's something that people look for, right? Biology that reflects the presence of living beings. So, okay, so that's one sense in which Lamarck is sort of continuous, I think, with current science. But also, I would say that, you know, one of the reasons I was interested in Lamarck is that some of his ideas are really coming back into mainstream biology and a way had been banished for all that time. But I think that biologists today are very interested in various ways in which organisms can shape the course of evolution. And, you know, there's, for example, this movement in biology, the extended evolutionary synthesis.

My colleague Mark Feldman at Stanford is a member of that movement. I've gotten to know a little about it through him and Kevin Layla at University of St. Andrews. And so these are people who are interested in trying to reincorporate mental and ecological and behavioral and even cultural elements back into the evolutionary picture. because so it's called the extended evolutionary synthesis in kind of response to the modern synthesis Huxley declared in 1942 which was the marriage of genetics and neo-Darwinism and according to the modern synthesis it was a very very I think a very reductive and kind of confined idea that there's random genetic variation purely random genetic variation in natural selection and so the extended evolutionary synthesis people are trying to open

open the field of explanation beyond that. So if I understand it correctly, the two big ingredients for Lamarck are, one, this tendency towards complexification, and number two, the inheritance of acquired characteristics. So it's not what Weissman was testing with his amputations, but if I work out and get stronger, it's possible that my children will be stronger because of that. Right. And actually, not just Darwin. I mean, Lamarck has a, I mean, sorry, not just Lamarck, but Darwin also was interested in those ideas, you know, the blacksmith's arm and, and, you know, the idea that you might have, I mean, yeah, those are those are in keeping with the sort of canonical examples that Lamarck offers, for example, the waterbirds who stretch their toes in order to paddle in the water and they end up getting, you know, very, very slightly each time more webbed,

webbing between their toes. He has this wonderful passage where he talks about, he thinks that water birds actually, let's see, how does he describe it? He says that shorebirds who don't like the water, they don't really want to be in the water, but they want to wade out to get food. And so they stretch their legs and they crane their necks. And so that's how you get the very, very long skinny legs. Whereas he says, ducks and swans, they like the water. And so they don't get those, they don't stretch their legs, but they get long necks because. So it has to do also with their likes and dislikes. And this is something that Darwin picked up among other places in his theory of sexual

selection, because according to sexual selection, Darwin describes animals by choosing mates according to their own standards of beauty and sexiness. They shape kind of one another from generation to generation. And so Darwin actually talks about sexual selection as a kind of, you know, animals exerting their standards of beauty and their aesthetic senses. So that's, you know, very much in keeping with Lamarck. I don't know if you know about the, you know, speaking of the other ingredient, the increased complexification. I had a podcast guest a couple months ago, or maybe it's over a year ago now. Michael Wong, who recently came out with a new book with Robert Hazen called Times Second Arrow, where they proposed.

a law of increasing functional information, which is basically their way of quantifying the idea that organisms as a whole do grow more complex over time. Oh, that is beautiful. I will read that. You know, Robert Hazen is among the people I was just thinking of when I was talking about current geology and interest in, yeah, biogenic. I think that, yeah, there's details there. That's a whole other thing.

But, I mean, I do, yeah, so I get the spirit of what you're trying to say, because there's certainly elements in Lamarck that absolutely are still there or even being rediscovered now. So not to oversimplify it, but I'll say in the oversimplified version, then you can fix it for me. It was the inheritance of acquired characteristics aspect of Lamarck's thought that some people decided was the opposite of what Darwin said, and therefore we should banish it from our discussions. But nowadays, we're sort of rediscovering the kind of senses in which maybe something like that is actually real. Yeah, I think there are a few different ways, actually. I can mention a few different, you know, because the last line of the book, which I realize is very polemical,

the last line of the book is Lamarck was right. And, of course, what do I mean by somebody who died in 829 being right about evolution? He didn't know anything about genetics. He didn't know. So I want to be very careful to specify what I mean by that is that animal behavior, plays a role in shaping the course of evolution. But there are various different ways. Oh, two things I want to be careful about.

First of all, I mean that animal behavior is in the course of evolution. And also, I don't mean Darwin was wrong. When I say Lamarck was right, as I say, Darwin was a Lamarckian. And he believed in the disease. But anyway, a few different ways in which behavior can shape the course of evolution or in which acquired characteristics can be inherited. it. One example that everybody thinks of, I think, nowadays is epigenetic changes. And so epigenetic inheritance refers to structures that are outside of the DNA, that are sort of around the DNA that

affect gene expression and that can therefore influence the course of evolution. And people have been, you know, that's a big area now of research and biology. And there are examples in every form of life and every possible context. But I have gotten involved, actually, this is one of the fun aspects of my kind of this great adventure of this Lamarck book is that I've managed to persuade some very nice biologists to do a research experiment on

epigenetic inheritance in giraffes. And I've never been involved in a science experiment being a historian but I really wondered first it started because I really wondered has anybody ever studied epigenetic inheritance in giraffe? The reason giraffes are the emblematic

Lamarck animal everybody thinks of giraffes and epigenetic inheritance, it seems, can be, that is to say, epigenetic changes in a given individual lifetime can be inherited in the next generation. So those are acquired changes that can be inherited, a kind of Lamarckian inheritance. So I wondered if anybody had studied epigenetic inheritance in giraffes. I couldn't find anything. I asked biologists who said, yeah, you're right. And so we've done this experiment, working with the giraffe Conservation Foundation in Namibia, they sent us cheek swabs.

When I told my daughter this, she just thought that was the most hilarious thing she'd ever, she was a very, very long Q-tip or, anyway, they sent us cheek swabs and from two different species of giraffes and Okapi, which are the closest relative to drafts with a much shorter neck. And we have found, when I say we, I mean, my collaborator, biologists have found that there are epigenetic differences between the two species of giraffes. between giraffes and no copy. This is just a very, very preliminary experiment. I mean, we don't, you know, you'd have to do a lot more work now to find out what those might mean. And it's also under review. It's not yet published. But it's been very cool to be a part of that research.

So that's one example, epigenetic inheritance. Another example is behavior. So there's this, well, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who were evolutionary biologists at Princeton. a married couple and partners in science. And they studied Darwin's finches in the Galapagos, and they showed speciation happening there in real time over 40 years. And what they showed was that behavioral isolation of populations preceded reproductive isolation, genetic isolation, which is to say that the population stopped mating long before they became infertile, which they knew because if it happened once in a blue moon,

they would there would be offspring right you see what I mean so the behavioral isolation preceded the the genetic isolation like and and that is sort of behavior leading natural selection there's another example of this a woman at Yale named Martha Munoz who's an extraordinary researcher who has studied lizards in the Dominican Republic that have moved up from sea level all the 3,000 meters where it's hold and she has shown that by being she says behaviorally nimble. They have, instead of evolving cold tolerance, what they have done is they have, they

heat themselves on the sunbaked rock, and then they have to scurry into crevices, gate predators. And so they've evolved things that make it easy to hide in a crevice, like flat head and short legs. And so it's, again, behavior leading natural selection. And then just one last thing, which Mark Feldman, my colleague and friend that I mentioned earlier at Stanford, he's been very involved in the field of niche construction. which is that the animal shapes the environmental niche that then exerts pressures upon it,

so it's a two-way street. So there are all kinds of examples of ways in which I would say, you know, in my broader interpretation, meaning of that sentence, little mark was right. Well, I'm very well aware as a physicist of the love that scientists have for finding the simplest possible way of talking about things. And the idea that we have some genome, some list of base pairs in our DNA, and basically that's everything.

That's what gets handed down. That's what has all the effects on who we are. It's very seductive. But being that biology is much more complicated than physics, in the end, I'm not surprised that, in fact, there's not a direct one-to-one map from the genome to who we are. There are all these other complicated things going along, including other genomes like in our mitochondria and so forth,

and then other parts of the organism, like our microbiome, And all of these seem to be to be, you know, like you've already said, not non-Darwinian, but enhancements or embellishments of the idea that were simply a list of base pairs handed down from generation to generation. Yeah, exactly. I think that's exactly. I think it's partly a love of simplicity. But I also think there are some other things maybe going on there. I mean, I mentioned, you know, in the first instance, in the later 19th, early 20th century,

I think it had to do with making room for a more traditional theological vision of living things. You know, if the organism is passive, that leaves room for a designer god behind the scenes. But I also think, you know, I've been really struck by the degree to which neo-Darwinists of the mid-middle decades of the 20th century, kind of from the inception of the modern synthesis, Julian Huxley, the English biologist declared the modern synthesis in 1944. So if you look at sort of from those middle decades of the 20th century onward, the degree which they were eugenicists. Actually, even going back before that, you can go back to R.A. Fisher, the sort of neticist statistician did foundational work in Neo-Darwinist biology and Haldane. I mean, I'm just sort of naming people involved in this establishment of this neo-Darwinist paradigm. they were all eugenicists pretty much without exception. And so that you have to sort of, you have to relinquish the idea that you had science and then science or science and, you know, miscarriages of science.

It really wasn't the case. They were really the same. And I think there was a sort of eugenic logic built into the idea of the passivity of living beings, including human beings. there was a kind of eugenic logic built into the deep structure of that idea that was, you know, attractive to these generations of kind of, what's the word? It's a very heroic model of science. You know, Julian Huxley says, we can become the general managers of evolution. And he coined the term transhumanism, which is a term apparently that Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah, it's not gone out of style. Transhumanism that we can take hold.

It's funny because there's sort of contradiction. you have this kind of passive model of what living things, including human beings are. And yet they have the idea that they can seize hold of it and exert their own structure on it. And so, you know, I have a transcript of a conference that took place in London in 1962 where all of these major figures were present. And they were saying things like they were trying to figure out how to solve the problem. Fisher was very worried, although he was. He wasn't at the company, but he had been very worried that poor people have more children than rich people. And he was assuming that poor people are genetically inferior.

And so how can we solve that problem? And people had various ideas like maybe you could offer a tax rebate to rich people for having more children or something like that. And so people were discussing this kind of idea at the conference. And Francis Crick says, well, you know, it should be a simple matter for a government to put a sterilizing agent into the food supply. And then people would have to apply for a license to have children and then they could give you an antidote. And he was sort of, it was sort of. By the way, yeah, casual. Sorry?

There's just sort of, by the way, casual suggestion. Yeah. People were joking about this. And, you know, so it was absolutely mainstream. And I think that Watson, James Watson, got in trouble very late in his life for staying all this kind of race stuff out loud in a very ugly way. But interestingly, what he was saying was really. not out of keeping with what utterly mainstream in that science through all those decades. And maybe, you know, I think in some ways even today.

And so I guess what I'm suggesting is that the attraction to this reductive neo-Darwinist paradigm is is not purely a love of simplicity, but I think it's a love of power and control also. It can be anyway. And that it's connected with a kind of eugenics, but also with an idea of exerting control, on the natural world. And so I'm hopeful that kind of story of Lamarck and Lamarckism can kind of cast some historical perspective on the current state of evolutionary biology and maybe suggest kind of

other ways of thinking about organ. Well, already people are pursuing these other ways of thinking about organisms or less about control and domination. Well, and I have the impression. Again, I'm certainly not an expert, so correct me, but these kinds of issues of evolution and how we shape who we are, et cetera, people have a lot of pre-existing ideas that they then sort of pseudoscience eyes, right, into their scientific theorizing. And I think it happens in all different ways. Like, famously, there was Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, which had a family connection to Lamarck somehow.

Yeah, Lysenko. Okay, that's a really interesting episode. and that's, I think, something else. People think of giraffes. That's one association they have with Lamarck, and often people think of Lysenko, the other association they have. So he claimed to be a Lamarckian.

In the 1940s, in the Soviet Union, Lysenko, the Soviet biologist claimed that he could change the germination season of wheat by subjecting it to cold and moisture. And that was actually something that farmers did, and you do that. But he also claimed that it would be inherited in the next generation, which it wasn't.

But that, again, not Lamarckism, really. That is more like Weissmann's chopping off the tails of mice, right? It's an exertion of... It's not the self doing the work. Right, exactly. It's an exertion from outside. Anyway, Lysenko claimed he could do this. Stalin embraced it, and it became very difficult

to do genetic research in the Soviet Union and one, actually one Soviet, that is Bavilov, was imprisoned and died in prison. And so, I mean, it was a terrible episode. But what's interesting to me about that episode is that it was really ideological from both sides. You know, so on the American, European, Western side, for example, Julian Huxley seized hold of this example of the example of Lysenko, because this is a moment when he, and other neo-Darwinists were very busily eradicating Marxism from Darwinism. And he sees hold of Lysenko and he basically explained that the, he said that the Soviet

communists couldn't accept genetics because they couldn't accept the reality of the genetic inequality of people. People are genetically unequal. And they were radical egalitarians and so they couldn't accept that. And so basically he equated Lamarckism with Soviet communism. And so in the West, it became very difficult to do research on Lamarckian inheritance or anything, you know, outside of the genome, also for ideological reasons. Say that it was ideological in the Soviet Union doesn't mean that it wasn't ideological. No, exactly.

All the sides. Everyone does it. Yeah. And Huxley also said, you know, this is part of his, he was eugenic, as I mentioned, and he said that we have to exploit the reality of genetic equality. And that the slogan should be, our slogan, he said, should be free but unequal. Right? That's a perfect encapsulation of the anti-Soviet, of the kind of Cold War ideology. Some will be more free than others when all of a sudden done, typically in that. Okay, good. This has been a very, very wonderful journey through both the history and the biography and the science of it all.

I have two questions to wind things up, and they're both pretty open-ended. So one, you've already alluded to this one, but given the whole story, given Lamarck and Darwin and the ideological components and the theological components, what are the lessons that you draw for how science should be done? Like, is it good to be aware of the predilections we have for letting certain non-epistemic factors creep in to how we theorize an experiment? Oh, thank you for asking that. Actually, that's something very close to my heart. I think that, well, one thing is that I talk with students about this a lot. I think that science is an element of human culture, and it's ineradicable from the, you know,

It's not separable from the rest of culture. So interpretation is go, that's another thing is that interpretation goes all the way down, right? Everything we know is known by us from our perspective in a culture and in a situation, and our interpretation is inseparable from our knowledge of the world. So rather than striving for a kind of view from nowhere objectivity, that's impossible. That can't happen, right? So rather than driving for that or claiming to represent it and to speak ex-cathedral and the science or nature, right, instead of that, I think the thing to aspire to kind of to be as self-conscious and transparent as possible about what our interprets are and why. And that is a different thing from objectivity, but it is not, it's still a question of rigor.

It's still a search for truth. But it is accepting the reality that interpretation goes all the way down and that that that, That's not a bad thing. It's not a taint. It is just what it is to be a human trying to understand the world. And then another thing I would say is that up through the end of the 19th century, the sciences were not separate from, as you've just been pointing out, the sciences were not separate from literature or art or aesthetics,

other elements of the culture. It was all philosophy. It was all kind of mixed together. And I was mentioning that Darwin was a brilliant writer. And he thought about his science. I think in very literal terms and philosophy and Lamarck also, you know, with a philosopher and a musician. And, you know, he was thinking about in this kind of holistic way. And then there was this moment of divorce at the end of the kind of, I would say, 25 years on either side of the turn of the 19th and 20th century,

there's a radical divorce between science, all other forms of knowing. And that's a whole story that I want to tell in another book, I think. The reasons for that divorce, I think, were interesting and political and complicated. But I think it's on some level it is impoverishing on both sides, you know. And I think that if we return to a more integral way of approaching the world in which different, if science is not kind of isolated, you know, existing in splendid isolation on its own, apart from everything else, but is more connected with other areas. that that would be a much better thing.

So teaching the history of science at a place like Stanford, I am kind of the soul of togetherness between both sides of campus, the sciences and the other areas. And I've been really excited to be a part of the conversations with these people in the extended evolutionary synthesis, who, as I mentioned, they're interested in culture. Like they talk about whales as having a culture,

deciding on what song they're going to sing and how they're going to hunt and doing that, handing that down to their offspring, these practices. That's a form of culture. And so the reason they were interested in talking with philosophy and science, these are people who study culture. So, you know, that more integral approach, I think, is maybe already happening. And it's a very exciting thing. Well, this is part of the motivation before us, for us trying to revive the idea of natural philosophy,

bringing the natural sciences back into more conversation with the philosophical side of things. Good. Then the final question. That question was, what are the lessons for how science is done? The final question is, what are the lessons for taking care of the world? Do you do at the end of the book, sort of, you know, say, okay, if we're remembering or being reminded of the fact that we are agents and the change is created by within us as well as external factors, does that have any implications for our place as denizens of planet Earth? Yeah, that's a wonderful question. Let me see if I can do justice with that question. I mean, one thing I think is that it's important to, um, in terms of in participatory terms, you know, we are acting from within the natural world and not from outside of it and imposing it upon it. And there's a French, he calls himself an environmental philosopher named Batiste Morizot.

He's at the University of Ex-Marcet, I think. He's written several books about this question of how, you know, his argument is that environmentalists often, you know, people who are really very concerned about conservation and preservation. they nevertheless continue to think in terms of exerting an order, you know, like, I don't know, eradicating invasive species and maintaining an ecology in the exact way that they feel that it should be maintained and so forth. And that this mindset is still participating in the older destructive way of thinking about things and that instead we should be regarding ourselves. Like, for example, E.O. Wilson had this, I think, crazy idea, a half-earth idea that. humans should occupy only half the planet and leave the other half wild, as though humans could be extricated from the rest of the natural world. And it's not the case. We're animals. This is what Lamarck and Darwin have shown us. We are animals in the animal world. We are part of nature.

And so I think that somehow we need to imagine our environmentalist conservation efforts sort of as being from within the natural world and not from without. I think that's a perfect motto to end on. It gives us absolutely something to think about in a way to move forward. So Jessica Riskin, thanks very much for being on the Mindscape podcast. Thank you so much. It's really been fun. It's been wonderful.