Critical Analysis of Primary Literature in a Master's-Level Class: Effects on Self-Efficacy and Science-Process Skills.

The ability to think analytically and creatively is crucial for success in the modern workforce, particularly for graduate students, who often aim to become physicians or researchers. Analysis of the primary literature provides an excellent opportunity to practice these skills. We describe a course that includes a structured analysis of four research papers from diverse fields of biology and group exercises in proposing experiments that would follow up on these papers. To facilitate a critical approach to primary literature, we included a paper with questionable data interpretation and two papers investigating the same biological question yet reaching opposite conclusions. We report a significant increase in students' self-efficacy in analyzing data from research papers, evaluating authors' conclusions, and designing experiments. Using our science-process skills test, we observe a statistically significant increase in students' ability to propose an experiment that matches the goal of investigation. We also detect gains in interpretation of controls and quantitative analysis of data. No statistically significant changes were observed in questions that tested the skills of interpretation, inference, and evaluation

Not Just a Theory—The Utility of Mathematical Models in Evolutionary Biology

Models have made numerous contributions to evolutionary biology, but misunderstandings persist regarding their purpose. By formally testing the logic of verbal hypotheses, proof-of-concept models clarify thinking, uncover hidden assumptions, and spur new directions of study. thumbnail image credit: modified from the Biodiversity Heritage Librar

Proximate and ultimate factors in evolutionary thinking on art

Art is often described as an evolutionary adaptation, but not enough thought has been given to arguments in support of this claim. This can lead to a variety of explanatory issues, such as unjustly describing artmaking as an adaptation, not recognizing its complex nature, and its potentially even more complex evolutionary trajectory. This paper addresses one subject in particular, which is the conceptual distinction between ultimate and proximate levels of explanation. More specifically, this brief analysis investigates to what extent functional, adaptive explanations and proximate mechanisms might be confused, leading to strong adaptationist claims that may not be in accordance with the available evidence. In this paper, two hypotheses are discussed from this perspective, and it is argued that both of them, upon closer and more extensive analysis, might not stand the adaptationist test