"Just as the Andromedans had to have a computer on Earth to take day-to-day decisions for them," Dawkins writes, "our genes have to build a brain."

IT'S THIS TYPE of writing that discredits The Selfish Gene. Dawkins gives the impression throughout the book that he is simply a nice zoologist who is attempting to simplify complex scientific data so more people can understand and appreciate it. But then he goes off on wild tangents, stringing together stupid analogies and speculating about the similarities between purine molecules and some futuristic society in Andromeda out of a science fiction novel he happened to find interesting. This type of rambling based on half-baked ideas that should have been kept in the oven doesn't exactly constitute the stuff of which great works of non-fiction are made of.

Dawkins has gotten much too wrapped up in his theories of genetic determinism to admit that cultural and environmental influences also affect behavior. This seems to be stylish these days. Scientists like E. O. Wilson, the author of Sociobiology, and William Shockley, newly elected member of the Academy of Sciences, and their biological explanations are gaining increased respectability.

But Dawkins, and those like him, might do well to spend less time observing animals and more time observing human beings before they decide how much influence genes have on human behavior. Dawkins forgets that just as he is more qualified than most to extrapolate on the mating tendencies of African anteaters, sociologists and psychologists may well be more qualified than he is to analyze the whys and wherefores of human actions and responses. It is silly and misleading to try to observe animal characteristics (which tend to be caused by genetic factors) and match them with corresponding human behavioral characteristics (which may be influenced by cultural factors).

AND, CITING EXAMPLES of behavior patterns in the animal kingdom to suggest human beings must inevitably behave in a similar fashion misses one major point. We are not animals, we are human beings. We are not controlled completely by genetic factors. Our relationship to animals farther down on the evolutionary scale is interesting and informative, but it can't be taken too seriously. Genetically, the difference between a man and a chimpanzee is negligible, but culturally there is all the difference in the world.

It is one thing to say genes help determine our height and weight. This is obvious. But to extend the argument beyond its scientific base and conclude that there must be complex genetic traits for altruism and aggression in human beings is going one step too far, too soon. The problem with The Selfish Gene is that it plays around with a subject which is controversial enough when dealt with honestly and factually. When, in the last chapter, Dawkins finally acknowledges that humans can "rebel" against their "selfish" genes, he fails to erase the overwhelming implications of the preceding ten chapters, and the result is a biased and inaccurate portrait of human life.

Well, so what? Lots of academics throw out zany ideas, you may say, it's all part of the process which ultimately leads to the truth and a more accurate conception of the universe. Maybe so. But academics also have a responsibility to avoid abusing the faith people put in them. They should not intentionally distort knowledge. And didn't distortions of Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" and belief in inherent genetic inferiority lead once to the death of six million Jews?