Even if you interpret it that way, she isn't qualified to reject the body of scientific biological research because she thinks the authors have ulterior motives

Even if you interpret it that way, she isn't qualified to reject the body of scientific biological research because she thinks the authors have ulterior motives. Such a claim would require strong evidence. Are there scientists with agendas? Yes. But on the whole, I think you can be pretty confident of objectivity. Gould is a relevant example, but he didn't reject the influence of biology. He simply rejected the idea of determinism based on our biology [1]. I don't think our biology determines us either, but we'd be fools not to take it into account. EDIT: A choice quote from Gould's piece: We are not denying that there are genetic components to human behavior. But we suspect that human biological universals are to be discovered more in the generalities of eating, excreting and sleeping than in such specific and highly variable habits as warfare, sexual exploitation of women and the use of money as a medium of exchange. What Wilson's book illustrates to us is the enormous difficulty in separating out not only the effects of environment (e.g., cultural transmission) but also the personal and social class prejudice of the researcher. Wilson joins the long parade of biological determinists whose work has served to buttress the institutions of their society by exonerating them from responsibility for social problems. Similarly, I don't support using biology as an excuse for sexist behavior. But denying that biology affects behavior is not scientifically accurate. [1] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9017?sess=305fe41afae729849e1e7eb4b004bb81 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9017?sess=305fe41afae729849e...