Pluralism in evolutionary theory

Developing the genotype-to-phenotype relationship in evolutionary theory: A primer of developmental features

For decades, there have been repeated calls for more integration across evolutionary and developmental biology. However, critiques in the literature and recent funding initiatives suggest this integration remains incomplete. We suggest one way forward is to consider how we elaborate the most basic concept of development, the relationship between genotype and phenotype, in traditional models of evolutionary processes. For some questions, when more complex features of development are accounted for, predictions of evolutionary processes shift. We present a primer on concepts of development to clarify confusion in the literature and fuel new questions and approaches. The basic features of development involve expanding a base model of genotype-to-phenotype to include the genome, space, and time. A layer of complexity is added by incorporating developmental systems, including signal-response systems and networks of interactions. The developmental emergence of function, which captures developmental feedbacks and phenotypic performance, offers further model elaborations that explicitly link fitness with developmental systems. Finally, developmental features such as plasticity and developmental niche construction conceptualize the link between a developing phenotype and the external environment, allowing for a fuller inclusion of ecology in evolutionary models. Incorporating aspects of developmental complexity into evolutionary models also accommodates a more pluralistic focus on the causal importance of developmental systems, individual organisms, or agents in generating evolutionary patterns. Thus, by laying out existing concepts of development, and considering how they are used across different fields, we can gain clarity in existing debates around the extended evolutionary synthesis and pursue new directions in evolutionary developmental biology. Finally, we consider how nesting developmental features in traditional models of evolution can highlight areas of evolutionary biology that need more theoretical attention.

Evolutionary pluralism and the ideal of a unified biology

Biological evolution is often regarded as a central and unifying axis of biology. This article discusses historical aspects of this ideal of unification, as well as signs of its disintegration from the 1960s to 1980s. We argue that despite new proposals for the synthesis of biological knowledge, contemporary evolutionary biology is characterized by pluralism. The main points in favor of evolutionary pluralism are discussed and some consequences of this perspective are presented, particularly in terms of the ideal of a unified biology. Finally, we defend an evolutionary pluralism that critiques the ideal of unification as a scientific objective, but still favors local integrations.

Linking Biodiversity with Health and Well-being: Consequences of Scientific Pluralism for Ethics, Values and Responsibilities

This paper investigates the ethical implications of research at the interface between biodiversity and both human and animal health. Health and sanitary crises often lead to ethical debates, especially when it comes to disruptive interventions such as forced vaccinations, quarantine, or mass culling of domestic or wild animals. In such debates, the emergence of a "Planetary health ethics" can be highlighted. Ethics and accountability principles apply to all aspects of scientific research including its technological and engineering applications, regardless of whether they are considered "hard sciences", such as state-of-the-art technology in the fields of medicine, veterinary medicine, agronomy, or environment, or "soft", such as local or global governance, health, socio-ecosystems, and the environment. Ethical reflection in the interdisciplinary field of biodiversity and health requires the examination of relevant scientific domains, such as biology, ecology, evolution, human medicine, animal medicine, anthropology, and law, and their epistemology and representation as well as scientific pluralism, which is crucial to establish genuine interdisciplinarity. Navigating the ethics-scape necessitates going beyond the hierarchy of science by recognising that scientific knowledge has implications for both scientific and non-scientific perspectives on the study of nature. The example of a Nipah virus outbreak is used to illustrate how the so-called "modern epidemiological" approach often focuses on risk factors associated with individual behavioural characteristics or collective practices, whereas the so-called "eco-social" approach focuses on global, socio-economic, and environmental factors that are the contextual causes of the health problem affecting the community. "Modern epidemiologists" aim to "correct" individual or practice factors using a "minimal set" of ethics, whereas "eco-social" scientists have to act systemically, which requires integrated research that acknowledges scientific pluralism, avoids the hierarchy of sciences, but accepts the pluralism of ethics and values.

The emerging structure of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: where does Evo-Devo fit in?

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) debate is gaining ground in contemporary evolutionary biology. In parallel, a number of philosophical standpoints have emerged in an attempt to clarify what exactly is represented by the EES. For Massimo Pigliucci, we are in the wake of the newest instantiation of a persisting Kuhnian paradigm; in contrast, Telmo Pievani has contended that the transition to an EES could be best represented as a progressive reformation of a prior Lakatosian scientific research program, with the extension of its Neo-Darwinian core and the addition of a brand-new protective belt of assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses. Here, we argue that those philosophical vantage points are not the only ways to interpret what current proposals to 'extend' the Modern Synthesis-derived 'standard evolutionary theory' (SET) entail in terms of theoretical change in evolutionary biology. We specifically propose the image of the emergent EES as a vast network of models and interweaved representations that, instantiated in diverse practices, are connected and related in multiple ways. Under that assumption, the EES could be articulated around a paraconsistent network of evolutionary theories (including some elements of the SET), as well as models, practices and representation systems of contemporary evolutionary biology, with edges and nodes that change their position and centrality as a consequence of the co-construction and stabilization of facts and historical discussions revolving around the epistemic goals of this area of the life sciences. We then critically examine the purported structure of the EES-published by Laland and collaborators in 2015-in light of our own network-based proposal. Finally, we consider which epistemic units of Evo-Devo are present or still missing from the EES, in preparation for further analyses of the topic of explanatory integration in this conceptual framework.

Evolutionary implications of the form of predator generalization for aposematic signals and mimicry in prey

Generalization is at the heart of many aspects of behavioral ecology; for foragers it can be seen as an essential feature of learning about potential prey, because natural populations of prey are unlikely to be perfectly homogenous. Aposematic signals are considered to aid predators in learning to avoid a class of defended prey. Predators do this by generalizing between the appearance of prey they have previously sampled and the appearance of prey they subsequently encounter. Mimicry arises when such generalization occurs between individuals of different species. Our aim here is to explore whether the specific shape of the generalization curve can be expected to be important for theoretical predictions relating to the evolution of aposematism and mimicry. We do this by a reanalysis and development of the models provided in two recent papers. We argue that the shape of the generalization curve, in combination with the nature of genetic and phenotypic variation in prey traits, can have evolutionary significance under certain delineated circumstances. We also demonstrate that the process of gradual evolution of Müllerian mimicry proposed by Fisher is particularly efficient in populations with a rich supply of standing genetic variation in mimetic traits.