I am very much honoured that a prominent scientific writer like Rose (Reference Rose2001) treats me with the same method as he and his circle have treated E. O. Wilson in their recent collection of essays (Reference Rose and RoseRose & Rose, 2000). Being a mere practising psychiatrist, it puzzles me why it has become acceptable for the anti-sociobiology/evolutionary psychology movement to misquote their opposition, in either a patronising or an openly hostile way, attributing hidden agendas to those who dare to think about human behaviour and psychological functioning in an evolutionary context. Clearly, they feel that the end justifies the means, and that their version of the truth has to be defended at any cost.

Segerstråle (Reference Segerstråle2000), in a detailed analysis of the sociobiology debate, compared the two camps of scientists to gardeners: one side representing the planters, and the other the weeders. It seems to me that both tasks are important in the development of the perfect garden of science. Rose appears to be an overzealous weeder, who is afraid that the dangerous weed of evolutionary psychology will destroy his garden and tries to kill it at every opportunity. The effort is unlikely to succeed. However, I need to point out that in my previous letters concerning the evolutionary psychology debate (Ayton, Reference Ayton2000, Reference Ayton2001) there was nothing to imply ‘some sort of conspiracy in psychiatry to ignore biology’ (Reference RoseRose, 2001). About 30-40% of all psychiatric references on the Medline database are biological studies, so there is no lack of biological studies and theories. However, what is lacking is a coherent theoretical framework; and evolutionary theory is largely ignored by psychiatric training or academia. It is untenable to state that only proximal causation is relevant to mental states or human behaviour. This was recognised by Darwin and beautifully demonstrated by Bowlby. Despite initial strong criticism, Bowlby's contribution to the understanding of the mother—infant relationship has become fundamental, and has wiped out earlier explanations.

If ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’ (Reference RoseRose, 2001), then surely, human beings and their behaviour cannot be excluded on scientific grounds.