Science is a social phenomena, i.e. it is done by women and men who come to their subjects with prior scientific and social commitments. Dr. Lloyd, with this grant, will be studying the affects of these prior commitments on the development of scientific theories. Her preliminary study shows that their impacts can best be seen in the gaps which necessarily exist between theoretical explanations and the available evidence. Given that there frequently is not enough evidence to firmly ground a theoretical explanation, a scientist brings to the problem both prior scientific beliefs and an inclination which has been cultivated in the society in which the science is developed for one kind of explanation over another. An example of such a development is the field of eugenics. Scientists took the available evidence from genetics and assimilated it with the racial and cultural biases which were cultivated in late 19th and early 20th century society and developed a theory for the "purification" and perfection of the human race. While consequences are not normally as extreme as in the case of eugenics, these factors clearly have an effect to a greater or lesser degree throughout science. Dr. Lloyd is examining the impact of the prior commitments of scientists in the development of their scientific explanations in evolutionary biology. The theoretical commitment which she is examining is that of "adaptationist" explanations. "Adaptive" stories in which a particular trait or property is assumed to have resulted from the direct operation of natural selection are the most prominent sort of evolutionary explanations. The traits themselves are seen as adaptations and the explanatory game is to provide a description of the environment and lifestyle of the organism which reveal how the possession of the trait would have contributed to the reproductive success of its owner. There can be a number of rational sounding adaptive explanations developed to explain a particular trait. Evidence is rarely sufficient to be determinative in such a situation. It is in such a situation that social orientations, biases if you will, lead scientists to prefer one explanation over another. In the case which Dr. Lloyd is studying, the unique aspects of female sexuality in humans, both male scientists and their feminist critics have used differing adaptive arguments for their respective positions. Dr. Lloyd will analyze these explanations in the context of a more general discussion of the use and abuse of adaptive explanations in evolutionary biology. Her study promises to be of great interest not only for the philosophy of science, but also for evolutionary biology and the social sciences.
