Raging boffins

The nature v nurture debate has never been so fierce. Robin McKie and Vanessa Thorpe report on the bitter row between two leading scientists

One is a boor, a scientific dinosaur and 'a hardline left-winger' whose ideas have long since ceased to matter. The other is a 'wicked' individual whose ideas could lead more children to be assaulted by abusive parents.

That is how two leading scientists have denounced each other over their claims to know the causes of human aggression. Violence is in the air and, it appears, at its roots.

In his book They F*** You Up British psychologist Oliver James argues family influences are critical. Neuroscientist Steven Pinker says nothing matters more than our genes. Both are openly abusive about each other's stance. Hence, the accusation of one of Pinker's allies that James is 'fucked-up' while he has retorted in turn that his opponent is telling lies.

The extraordinarily angry row reveals the depth of the scientific battle that is emerging over the soul of mankind. On one side stand the followers of the fledgling science of evolutionary psychology, led by Pinker. They say studies of human evolution show that parents have little impact on their children's behaviour. Only their genes, and a person's interaction with peers and friends, matter in the shaping of violent personalities. Road rage and murder are in our DNA.

On the other side are traditional psychologists and psychoanalysts who say that children's aggressive behaviour is picked up from violent parents. The family is the root of all troubles. Genes have only a limited role in the birth of of criminal, violent behaviour. Learning from parents is key.

Pinker, head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's centre of cognitive neuroscience, outlines his views in The Blank Slate. His and James's books were published last week and sparked an exchange of vitriol between the authors.

Pinker says violent roots are deep and innate, and quotes Winston Churchill's maxim that 'long before history, murderous strife was universal and unending'. He is dismissive of those who claim violent tendencies are learnt from others.

'Aggressive parents often have aggressive children, but people who conclude that aggression is learnt from parents in a "cycle of violence" never consider the possibility that violent tendencies could be inherited,' he says.

And he dismisses agencies such as the United Nations, which claim that 'violence is part of an historical process and is not natural or born of biological determinism'. According to Pinker, violence 'is part of our design'.

This claim is denounced by James. He says that one of the main pieces of evidence used by Pinker - studies of children reared by adoptive parents, and of identical and non-identical twins - show that family life, not genes, is crucial in the acquisition of criminally violent habits.

James says several major European studies show that children born to violent parents but raised in peaceable households are no more likely to have violent, criminal records than those born to non-violent parents. However, those raised in homes run by violent adoptive parents tend to be criminally aggressive.

'Surely, if twin and adoption studies show little or no heritability for violence then the reason why violence runs in families must be environmental,' James told The Observer. 'The huge body of evidence shows that violence breeds violence, not genes.'

But Pinker insists he is correct, a divergence of views that led the pair to indulge in a ferocious interchange on the normally staid Radio 3 show Night Waves last Wednesday. James persistently challenged Pinker over the existence of studies that support the idea that violence genes can control behaviour. On several occasions, he interrupted Pinker to demand he name studies that backed his views. When Pinker claimed some studies did back his ideas, James accused him of lying. 'What you are saying is untrue. You are not answering the question,' he said.

'I am interested that you won't let me,' replied Pinker. As the programme's editor Mohit Bakaya told The Observer: 'It was very lively. I am not surprised if they are still fuming. James seemed out to get Pinker. It would be easy to feel sorry for Pinker listening to the programme, but there are two sides.'

Both have since become more embittered. 'James is a hardline left-winger and he believes mine is a right-wing argument,' said Pinker. 'I would say it was just sensible. In fact, James is out on his own. He is in at the end of a declining field and he is desperately trying to prop it up. He is rather a boorish individual. He had a tantrum on air.'

James has been equally unrepentant. 'I think Pinker's argument is wicked. He is saying - along with the US psychologist Judith Harris - that parents have little or no role in influencing their children's personalities.


James also denounced the work of Thomas Bouchard, whose twin studies, carried out at the University of Minnesota, are used as a key source by Pinker. By studying identical twins reared in separate adoptive families, Bouchard claims to have found critical inherited components to virtually all aspects of human personality.

'The Minnesota team make all sorts of claims but whenever other scientists ask to check their results, they refuse. By contrast, studies by European scientists who have found virtually no genetic component to violent behaviour are open. Don't forget, this work got some of its first funding from the New York Eugenics Society.'

However, Pinker was defended by Harris. 'I think [James's] parents must have brought him up badly. Certainly, he sounds fucked-up, like his book.' She also denied that she and Pinker were arguing that parents had no role in influencing their children. 'Of course they do. Those who come from comfortable, happy homes always do well.'

Nevertheless, children are still far more likely to acquire habits and personality traits not from parents, but from their peers,' she told The Observer. 'Parents are important, but not all-powerful in influencing children.'

Pinker backs this view. 'If we are talking about personality traits we can see that children growing up in the same home are not more similar to each other than other children.' Genes are the crucial variable, in short.

But not, of course, for James. 'It is utterly preposterous to think parents are such weak influences. It is also pernicious. Parents are the most important influences in any child's upbringing. It is nonsense to think otherwise.'

Today's best video

Today in pictures