Via Small Dead Archeopteryxes (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/010430.html) - pardon today's continuing linkage problem which is driving our News Junkie nuts - comes this question:
If sociologists ignore genes, will other academics — and the wider world — ignore sociology?
One quote from the linked site, South Dakota Politics (http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2009/01/sociology-is-al.html), which reveals these folks to be paleo-Marxists at heart:
In fact, a lot of sociologists are as offended by Darwin as your average Creationist.
Just two years ago, in his presidential address to the American Sociological Association, Troy Duster, an eminent sociologist at New York University, went so far as to suggest that any sociologist who embraced genetic approaches was a traitor to the discipline. Two of the biggest problems facing sociology, he argued, were the "increasing authority of reductionist science" and "the attendant expansion of databases on markers and processes 'inside the body.'" If anything defined sociology, Duster said, it was its role as "century-long counterpoint" to such efforts to connect the roots of social problems to biology.