201. Bill Hamilton: a portrait with warts and all
- Author
-
Brian Charlesworth
- Subjects
Psychoanalysis ,Sociobiology ,Galton's problem ,HERO ,Biography ,Context (language use) ,Kin selection ,Altruism (biology) ,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics ,Wonder - Abstract
View Large Image | Download PowerPoint SlideAs readers of TREE are undoubtedly aware, William (Bill) Hamilton was one of the most influential evolutionary biologists of the second half of the 20th century. Ullica Segerstrale's Nature's Oracle is the first full-length biography to appear since Hamilton's untimely death early in 2000, and provides a mass of details about both his professional and personal lives. It conveys a vivid impression of a brilliant but flawed person, who had a very strong sense of what he wanted to achieve, and a lack of social skills that seems unusual even by the low standards of many scientists.From a very early age, Hamilton had a deep curiosity about the living world, and an intense interest in understanding it in terms of evolution by natural selection. As an undergraduate, he soon discovered Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection [1xThe Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Fisher, R.A. See all References][1]. This inspired much of his future work; the problems of altruism, sex ratio evolution, selection in relation to age, sexual selection, and the evolution of sex and recombination, were all discussed by Fisher. He decided to work on the problem of altruism during his final year at Cambridge University. He was fortunate to be taken on by the London School of Economics and the Galton Laboratory at University College London, and allowed to pursue this goal under light supervision. Hamilton clearly felt isolated and misunderstood during his PhD work, and the letters from this period that are quoted convey feelings of self-pity that seem to have persisted throughout his life. He complained that he was never invited to give a presentation on his work, but from my own experience this was quite normal at the time; PhD students were then largely to be seen and not heard.Segerstrale makes it clear that, from the start of his career, Hamilton was unusually sensitive to what he saw as a lack of due recognition. At times, he displayed an almost paranoid view of some of his colleagues. The most notorious example of this was his reaction to John Maynard Smith's 1975 review of E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology [2xSociobiology: The New Synthesis. Wilson, E.O. See all References][2] in the New Scientist [3xSurvival through suicide. Maynard Smith, J. New Sci. 1975; 28: 496–497See all References][3], which is covered in considerable detail. To be brief, John mentioned that J.B.S. Haldane had made a remark in a London pub conversation to the effect that ‘he was prepared to lay down his life for eight cousins or two brothers’. Hamilton refused to accept this as true, even after it had been pointed out that Haldane had published something very similar in 1955, in an article in the popular science publication Penguin New Biology [4xPopulation genetics. Haldane, J.B.S. Penguin New Biol. 1955; 18: 34–51See all References][4]. Hamilton all but accused John of having invented the story in an attempt to minimise the importance of his contributions. This lead to several years in which he was deeply hostile to John, and even refused to attend scientific meetings at which John was present. In reality, John was always ready to express his admiration for Hamilton's work on kin selection, and I remember his expressing this very clearly in a lecture to a Cambridge undergraduate society in 1965. It was only when H.J. Eysenck confirmed that he too had heard Haldane's remarks that Hamilton relented, in a letter to John in 1980 quoted by Segerstrale.These examples illustrate the major strength of the book: it provides revealing details of how Hamilton worked and thought, and how he interacted with his peers. One of its weaknesses is that Segerstrale does not seem to have a broad knowledge of evolutionary biology, and so does not do a very good job of putting Hamilton's work into the context of developments in the field as whole. Although the areas in which Hamilton worked were indeed very significant growth points, and were driven forward by his insights, there were several others that were also advancing rapidly over this period, to which Hamilton made little or no contribution. For example, no mention is made of molecular evolution, a hugely important area of modern evolutionary biology that was largely ignored by him. In discussing Hamilton's visit to Japan in 1986, Segerstrale implies that there was then no important Japanese evolutionary biologist, at a time when Motoo Kimura had helped to create the field of molecular evolution. Similar, she fails to give a clear account of how Hamilton's work on the role of host–parasite interactions in the evolution of sex and recombination relates to the work of others at the same time; he was not alone in proposing this idea.The last phase of Hamilton's career mainly concerned the origin of human HIV, resulting in his final trip to Africa and tragic death from a gastrointestinal haemorrhage following a malarial infection. It is not entirely clear from Segerstrale's account why he got involved in this topic, and became a supporter of Edward Hooper's theory of the transmission of HIV-1 from chimpanzees during the development of a polio vaccine in the Congo in the 1950s. She does not explain the nature of the evidence that was needed to ascertain the truth and led to the downfall of this hypothesis, which may confuse nonspecialists.Overall, the book gives enough information about Hamilton's career to enable the reader to see him warts and all, despite a tendency towards hero worship. He comes over as an exceptionally single-minded person with a large ego, despite a shy and unassuming manner. He was a poor lecturer to undergraduates, and frequently also to his peers in seminars and conferences. He published relatively few papers. Nonetheless, he did work of enormous importance. This is, of course, because of Hamilton's great abilities, but some credit should probably be given to the rather ramshackle British academic system of the 1960s, for allowing such a singular person to establish a career. One is led to wonder whether someone like this could survive beyond the first few years of their career, in the modern era of pressure from the top to teach, publish in ‘high-impact’ journals, bring in juicy research grants, and devote time to filling out endless electronic forms. We may be in danger of losing the most creative minds from science.
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF