I understand why they went with the combative “admit” phrasing in the title. Subtextually, this is a shot fired against unsavory opinions that claim a basis in

I understand why they went with the combative “admit” phrasing in the title. Subtextually, this is a shot fired against unsavory opinions that claim a basis in strict genetic determinism. However, that strict interpretation is an extreme fringe of belief. The interaction between “nature” and “nurture” is a fully mainstream concept, especially amongst scientists, and especially amongst biologists. What is this “New Biology” of which the book speaks? The article is arguing against something of a straw man. Worse, this manner of challenging the notion of strict genetic determinism is fuel to the terminally polarized who will snap to the equal and opposite error of assuming genes don’t matter at all - an idea which underwrites a bunch of profoundly unscientific woo.