Biology or Sociology?

“In Survival of the Sickest,” Dr. Sharon Moalem examines how many of the genes that cause detrimental diseases today can be explained by evolutionary processes. He argues that these now harmful genes could have been beneficial to a population’s survival at a previous point in time. This is why some people are pre-disposed to carry genes that cause diseases. For example, he discusses how humans who had diabetes were actually much less likely to freeze during the ice age. Or that people who produce too much iron were more likely to survive during the bubonic plague. Obviously now that we are not living in an ice age or time of plague, these genes are more harmful then helpful. The point is that they used to increase ones chances of survival, which is why they exist.

On the one hand I think that Moalem’s argument is an interesting account into why some populations are more pre-disposed to certain diseases. He makes a convincing argument that evolutionary factors could explain why Western Europeans are more likely to have the gene giving them too much iron, or why African-Americans are more likely to have higher cholesterol. I think society can unfairly to look down on people with these deficiencies as weaker members of the population who are somehow responsible for their disease. Moalem’s book clearly explains that many times, people are genetically pre-disposed to a certain illness because it would have actually been beneficial for them in a previous time period. African-Americans aren’t more likely to have higher cholesterol because of poor lifestyle choices, but because of an evolutionary process.

At the same time, I’m a little confused as to why we are reading this book for a sociology class. I’ve only read half the book so far, but it seems as though the author solely focuses on biological and evolutionary factors for why some people may be prone to a certain disease. I’m not criticizing the author for writing his book like this. Clearly he has a very specific point that he wants to stress; that diseases and genes that are detrimental to us today can be attributed to evolutionary factors because they would have been beneficial in a previous time period. However, it seems that for sociology, we would be focusing more on how social factors, not solely biological factors, effect people’s health today. I’m not saying that this book wasn’t valuable to read, I just feel as though it’s a little one-sided on the nature argument, and not enough on the nurture argument, at least for our major.