Science and Running
And a Reflection on Knowledge
Recently, I finished reading Michael Crawley’s 2020 book, Out of Thin Air, about his time in Ethiopia among some of the greatest distance runners in the world. Crawley is a semi-elite runner himself, and an anthropologist from Scotland. I found the book interesting because the story was compelling, although at times I found it frustrating, because Crawley would occasionally make statements about science and human performance that struck me as rather silly or weak.
I want to use the book as a jumping-off point for a broader discussion, but I don’t plan to make this essay simply a series of complaints about a book that was well-written and intriguing. Most of the pages in it are devoted to an engaging narrative about individual runners and the nation in which they live, and Crawley’s anthropology work strikes me as quite an impressive feat for a relatively young man. Fans of The Way of the Runner or Running with the Kenyans (both by Adharanand Finn) will probably enjoy Out of Thin Air.
Science and Human Performance:
Crawley annoyed me early in the book when, rather than making a useful point about the limits of our understanding of human genetics (and the science of athletic potential more generally), he rejected the idea that genetics could tell us anything at all about athletics. He points out rightly that scientists haven’t identified a single “sports gene,” but he appears to think this is dispositive proof that genetics doesn’t affect ability at all (he then appears to walk back a little from this statement later in the book, and of course I could have misinterpreted his position, but one is left with the distinct impression that he wants to cast doubt on genetics whether or not he rejects it entirely).
I accept the idea that there will be debates about human nature (which some will argue doesn’t exist) when it comes to identity or politics or economics or social life. However, it seems remarkably silly to suggest that human nature doesn’t exist when it comes to physical biology. Crawley tiptoes towards a view that physical ability is a social construct. Meaning that athletes can think their way to victory if they believe hard enough.
Perhaps he is simply giving his due to the Ethiopians he runs with, who are very superstitious (not an uncommon thing in athletes, as any sports fan knows).1 But Crawley sets up a weird dichotomy between a Western, overly-scientific, expertise-driven approach to running, and the intuitive (and perhaps more natural) approach he finds in Ethiopia. Strangely, he doesn’t seem to fully accept the idea that there is something to be learned from both approaches and that neither fully explains long-distance running (one that I think the majority of runners would find appealing).2
There are some people who believe in genetic determinism – the theory that genes in fact govern all human ability and behavior, to such an extent that there is little role for agency. Training, grit, cunning, and intelligent planning play very little role in elite running performance – it’s all talent (i.e., genes). Most people (myself included) don’t believe either that genes are entirely deterministic, or that they do nothing at all, but rather that genetics plays a major role in sports (and life) but that other factors also play major roles (including parenting, education, culture, personal determination, smarts, etc.).
At one point, Crawley quotes an Ethiopian coach with a graduate degree in sports performance, who criticizes his runners for believing that they could gain energy from trees as they ran by them (literally). Then Crawley says that the coach was wrong and quotes a novel (i.e., a work of fiction). Now, I would be the last to argue that novels can’t tell us things that are true and real about the world – especially about human beings. But they can also tell us things that are false (as can supposed scientific expertise, as I will get to in a bit), and the idea that energy (i.e., not metaphorical energy but physical energy) could move from trees to human beings via a process of osmosis would upend physics as we know it and therefore requires more rigorous proof.
Technically, the statement from the novel is true, if we take it to mean that plants turn the energy from the sun’s light into chemical energy, which is then ingested by animals and human beings (who also ingest animals and break down the energy in animal cells etc.), who break it down and turn it into chemical potential energy, which is then eventually turned into kinetic energy (i.e., running) via various bodily processes. One gets the sense that that isn’t what either author means.