Can Genes be Selfish?

In the autumn of 1972 I started a degree course in Biology at the University of York.  One of the first things we were told in no uncertain terms was we must at all costs avoid the use of teleology.  It is easy in biology to ascribe conscious purpose to things that do not have a purpose. 

In scientific writing teleology should be avoided and this applies just as much to popular science writing as it does to scientific papers.  In later posts I will explore materialism and consciousness but even if we allow an element of consciousness we must do so explicitly and with great care so as not to mislead about what we mean.

This is why I find the title of Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene disturbing.  I hope Dawkins would agree that to ascribe selfishness to a gene is to ascribe a human emotion to an inanimate object.  A gene is a length of DNA (a chemical) which is coded in a certain way.  It is no more conscious than a piece of paper with a code written on it.

Here are few more problems I have with the concept:

1. Genes do not evolve on their own.  We cannot talk sensibly of a single gene.  Genes come in long sequences of DNA which might code several genes as well as long sequences that do not seem to code for genes at all (non-coding DNA).  For many species DNA is arranged in chromosomes and several of these are passed on to future generations together.  Surely selection acts upon all these genes together?  I suppose if Dawkins were right, they would all be selfish but then they would be in competition with each other.
2. These many genes must work together to generate a living organism.  My gut feeling is that selfishness is not an adequate word to express how this happens.  If a gene were capable of acting selfishly, then surely it would be cancerous?  Genes that work together will be selected together.
3. Pure DNA replete with thousands of selfish genes, selected to be the epitome of brilliance amongst genes, and in a bottle on a shelf will not replicate and not be subject to selection.  The genetic code means nothing until it is interpreted, through complex chemical reactions in the cell, into proteins.  The reality is that every gene carries its own life support system with it.  The thing is this life support system is coded by other genes.  So, lets say we have a single gene that codes for something highly desirable it is still dependent upon other genes that code for the gene's life support system.  So our selfish gene is actually dependent upon a life support system provided by other genes (presumably also selfish). 

Now Dawkins does concede that altruism is possible between genes where it is of benefit to the genes thought to be altruistic.  So, genes coding for the life support systems in the cell, the systems that help all genes to replicate or code for protein, are actually really being selfish.

What we are seeing here is an ideology.  We are reading human motivation into chemical reactions.  By calling these genes selfish we are not describing what these genes are doing or why they're doing it.  We are projecting human emotions, spirituality, politics and who knows what onto chemical reactions. 

If I were to ascribe any human motivation to this activity it would be self-interest.  Genes are no more self interested than they are selfish but if we are to ascribe human characteristics, why not self-interest?  The point I'm making is that the use of the word 'selfish' tells us more of Dawkins' view of humanity than it does about the nature of genes.