Thanks to Richard Prins for the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wils.html?ex=1373774400&en=61ce2cf6078ccc96&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

To reach Edward O. Wilson's office on the Harvard campus, one must first push through a door with a sign warning the public not to enter. Then, enter a creaky old elevator and press two buttons simultaneously. This counterintuitive procedure transports one into a strange realm.

It is a space that holds the world's largest collection of ants, some 14,000 species. Curators are checking the drawers, dominated by the tall figure of Dr. Wilson, who is trying to contain his excitement: the 14,001st ant species has just been discovered in the soils of a Brazilian forest. He steamrolls any incipient skepticism about the ant's uniqueness — the new species is a living coelacanth of ants, a primitive throwback to the first ant, a wasp that shed its wings and assigned all its descendants to live in earth, not their ancestral air. The new ant is so alien, Dr. Wilson explains, so unlike any known to earthlings, that it will be named as if it came from another planet.

Ants are Dr. Wilson's first and enduring love. But he has become one of the world's best-known biologists through two other passions, his urge to create large syntheses of knowledge and his gift for writing. Through the power of his words, he champions the world's biodiversity and regularly campaigns for conservation measures.

Though he celebrated his 79th birthday last month, Dr. Wilson is generating a storm of literary output that would be impressive for someone half his age. An updated edition of "The Superorganism," his encyclopedic work on ants co-written with Bert Hölldobler, will be published in November. Dr. Wilson is at work on his first novel. He is preparing a treatise on the forces of social evolution, which seems likely to apply to people the lessons evident in ant colonies. And he is engaged in another fight.

Beneath his gentle manner and Southern charm, Dr. Wilson is a scrapper. He grew up in Alabama and Florida, where the local custom with respect to fistfights was that one could prevail or get knocked out, with no third option. "I never picked a fight," he wrote in "Naturalist," his autobiography. "But once started I never quit, even when losing, until the other boy gave up or an adult mercifully pulled us apart."

Dr. Wilson was not picking a fight when he published "Sociobiology" in 1975, a synthesis of ideas about the evolution of social behavior. He asserted that many human behaviors had a genetic basis, an idea then disputed by many social scientists and by Marxists intent on remaking humanity. Dr. Wilson was amazed at what ensued, which he describes as a long campaign of verbal assault and harassment with a distinctly Marxist flavor led by two Harvard colleagues, Richard C. Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould.

The new fight is one Dr. Wilson has picked. It concerns a central feature of evolution, one with considerable bearing on human social behaviors. The issue is the level at which evolution operates. Many evolutionary biologists have been persuaded, by works like "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, that the gene is the only level at which natural selection acts. Dr. Wilson, changing his mind because of new data about the genetics of ant colonies, now believes that natural selection operates at many levels, including at the level of a social group.

It is through multilevel or group-level selection — favoring the survival of one group of organisms over another — that evolution has in Dr. Wilson's view brought into being the many essential genes that benefit the group at the individual's expense. In humans, these may include genes that underlie generosity, moral constraints, even religious behavior. Such traits are difficult to account for, though not impossible, on the view that natural selection favors only behaviors that help the individual to survive and leave more children.

"I believe that deep in their heart everyone working on social insects is aware that the selection that created them is multilevel selection," Dr. Wilson said.

Last year he and David Sloan Wilson, a longtime advocate of group-level selection, laid out a theoretical basis for this view in an article in the Quarterly Review of Biology. Their statement evoked a heated response from Dr. Dawkins in New Scientist; he accused them of lying on a minor point and demanded an apology.

Proposing an idea heretical to many evolutionary biologists is one of the smaller skirmishes Dr. Wilson has set off. In his 1998 book "Consilience," he proposed that many human activities, from economics to morality, needed to be temporarily removed from the hands of the reigning specialists and given to biologists to work out a proper evolutionary foundation.

"It is an astonishing circumstance that the study of ethics has advanced so little since the 19th century," he wrote, dismissing a century of work by moral philosophers. His insight has been supported by the recent emergence of a new school of psychologists who are constructing an evolutionary explanation of morality.

Dr. Wilson's treatise, on the shaping of social behavior, seems likely to tread firmly into this vexed arena. Morality and religion, he suspects, are traits based on group selection. "Groups with men of quality — brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic — would tend to prevail, as Darwin said, over those groups that do not have those qualities so well developed," Dr. Wilson said.

"Now that, obviously, is a rather unpopular idea, very politically incorrect if pushed, but nevertheless Darwin may have been right about that. Undoubtedly that will be another big controversy," he said without evident regret, "and that will be my next book, when I get through my novel."

It is time for lunch, and he walks a visitor over to the Harvard Faculty Club. He calls attention to the "glass palaces" of the molecular biologists that tower over the humble old buildings inhabited by whole-animal biologists like himself. He is pleased that the cause of biological diversity is at least getting high-level attention: a day earlier, he testified on the subject before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He talks about the Encyclopedia of Life, a project he started with the help of the MacArthur Foundation.

Over lunch he describes his novel in progress, currently titled "Anthill." Its contents have occasioned certain differences of emphasis between himself and his publisher, even though it was his editor at Norton, Robert Weil, who suggested he write it. Dr. Wilson would like ants to play a large role in the novel, given all the useful lessons that can be drawn from their behavior. The publisher sees a larger role for people and a smaller, at most ant-sized, role for ants. The novel is rotating through draft after draft as this tension is worked out.

Dr. Wilson has won two Pulitzer Prizes for literature, but that is no shield against a publisher's quest for perfection. "They said, 'You can do better than that, Ed,' " he recalled. "I wrote another draft. They said, 'This is great, Ed, but we need more emotion, ambivalence.' " In the next draft, he plans to have the human characters stand alone, without the ants if necessary.

Looking back at the "heavy mortar fire" that rained down on him over "Sociobiology," he said he had risked his academic career and feared for a time that he had made a fatal error. His admiration for the political courage of the Harvard faculty is not without limits; many colleagues told him they supported him, but all did so privately. Academic biologists are still so afraid of inciting similar attacks that they practice sociobiology under other names, like evolutionary psychology.

Though Dr. Wilson is a fighter when necessary, he is also a conciliator. In his most recent book, "The Creation," he calls for scientists and religious leaders to make common cause in saving the natural life of the planet. He has addressed major meetings of Mormons and Southern Baptists to ask for their help in protecting biodiversity. Of the differences between science and religion, he says: "Stop quibbling — I'm willing to say 'Under God' and to hold my hand to my heart. That's recognition of how this country evolved, and that we are using strong language to strong purpose, even if we may not agree on how the Earth was created."

Lunch is over. He banters with the waitress, who has neglected the order for coffee. Then it is back to the ants and the writing and the endless quest to understand how the hand of evolution has shaped every aspect of life.