Science against humanity

Apparently some scientists are so ashamed of our public leaders that they feel the need to defend or at least rationalize their behavior. Psychologically, wrong-doing requires a rationalization. Us humans always have an excuse. See today's New York Times Science page, where Natalie Angier explains that faithfulness is not natural:

It’s been done by many other creatures, tens of thousands of other species, by male and female representatives of every taxonomic twig on the great tree of life. Sexual promiscuity is rampant throughout nature, and true faithfulness a fond fantasy. Oh, there are plenty of animals in which males and females team up to raise young, as we do, that form “pair bonds” of impressive endurance and apparent mutual affection, spending hours reaffirming their partnership by snuggling together like prairie voles or singing hooty, doo-wop love songs like gibbons, or dancing goofily like blue-footed boobies.

Yet as biologists have discovered through the application of DNA paternity tests to the offspring of these bonded pairs, social monogamy is very rarely accompanied by sexual, or genetic, monogamy.

The obvious but implicit argument is that since promiscuity is natural, it's not wrong. Eliot Spitzer was justified because he was just acting according to his nature - we shouldn't expect anything more from him. The scientist has reduced human nature to animal nature.

This is not good! Humans are much more than complicated apes and we cannot afford to forget this essential truth. For further exploration of this idea please see Mortimer Adler's The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes

It's one thing to note that animals are promiscuous. It's entirely another thing to associate this research with a high-profile prostitution scandal and offer it as something of a justification.