The Selfish Gene

Describing genes with the term "selfish" is not meant to imply that they have actual motives or will—only that their effects can be described as if they do.

A crude analogy can be found in the old joke "A chicken is just an egg's way
of making more eggs."
Likewise, Dawkins describes biological organisms as "vehicles" used by their
genes for making more copies of those genes, regardless of the effect they might
have on individuals or species.
Obviously, genes that tend to help the organisms they are in to survive and
reproduce also help themselves; so most of the time the gene and the organism
share common goals.
But there are exceptions: segregation distortion genes, for example, that
are detrimental to their host nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense.
Likewise, the existence of junk DNA that provides no benefit to its host,
once a puzzle, can be more easily explained.
These examples might suggest that there is a power-struggle between those genes and their host. In fact, the claim is that the interests of the organism are redundant, from an evolutionary point of view. (This is where the related concept of the extended phenotype comes into play.)

Proponents argue that the central point of the idea, that the gene is the unit of selection, is a more accurate recasting of evolution than Darwin's (who couldn't
have explained natural selection in these terms because the basic mechanisms
of genetics weren't understood at the time). Critics argue that this view oversimplifies the relationship between genes and the organism.

Proponents argue that when looked at from the point of view of gene-selection, many biological phenomena that were difficult to explain in terms of prior models of evolution
become easier to understand and explain. In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as genes helping copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. In other words, genes act "selfishly" to increase the number of copies of
themselves and for no other reason.

The idea is sometimes mistakenly believed to support genetic determinism. This is incorrect: knowing that an organism carries a particular allele, we might be able to say that the organism is more likely than otherwise to behave in a certain way, but its actual behavior will depend on its environment and its developmental history. In particular, this applies to human organisms; Dawkins is quick to point out that although we may be influenced by our genes,
we are not controlled by them. Even further from Dawkins' concept is the misunderstanding of the idea as predicting (or even prescribing or justifying) that human behaviour must be "selfish" in some sense.

Bibliography