Hierarchy Theory of Evolution and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Some Epistemic Bridges, Some Conceptual Rifts

Contemporary evolutionary biology comprises a plural landscape of multiple co-existent conceptual frameworks and strenuous voices that disagree on the nature and scope of evolutionary theory. Since the mid-eighties, some of these conceptual frameworks have denounced the ontologies of the Modern Synthesis and of the updated Standard Theory of Evolution as unfinished or even flawed. In this paper, we analyze and compare two of those conceptual frameworks, namely Niles Eldredge’s Hierarchy Theory of Evolution (with its extended ontology of evolutionary entities) and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (with its proposal of an extended ontology of evolutionary processes), in an attempt to map some epistemic bridges (e.g. compatible views of causation; niche construction) and some conceptual rifts (e.g. extra-genetic inheritance; different perspectives on macroevolution; contrasting standpoints held in the “externalism–internalism” debate) that exist between them. This paper seeks to encourage theoretical, philosophical and historiographical discussions about pluralism or the possible unification of contemporary evolutionary biology

Developing a digital intervention for cancer survivors: an evidence-, theory- and person-based approach

This paper illustrates a rigorous approach to developing digital interventions using an evidence-, theory- and person-based approach. Intervention planning included a rapid scoping review which identified cancer survivors’ needs, including barriers and facilitators to intervention success. Review evidence (N=49 papers) informed the intervention’s Guiding Principles, theory-based behavioural analysis and logic model. The intervention was optimised based on feedback on a prototype intervention through interviews (N=96) with cancer survivors and focus groups with NHS staff and cancer charity workers (N=31). Interviews with cancer survivors highlighted barriers to engagement, such as concerns about physical activity worsening fatigue. Focus groups highlighted concerns about support appointment length and how to support distressed participants. Feedback informed intervention modifications, to maximise acceptability, feasibility and likelihood of behaviour change. Our systematic method for understanding user views enabled us to anticipate and address important barriers to engagement. This methodology may be useful to others developing digital interventions

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

The Latin American Social Medicine database

BACKGROUND: Public health practitioners and researchers for many years have been attempting to understand more clearly the links between social conditions and the health of populations. Until recently, most public health professionals in English-speaking countries were unaware that their colleagues in Latin America had developed an entire field of inquiry and practice devoted to making these links more clearly understood. The Latin American Social Medicine (LASM) database finally bridges this previous gap. DESCRIPTION: This public health informatics case study describes the key features of a unique information resource intended to improve access to LASM literature and to augment understanding about the social determinants of health. This case study includes both quantitative and qualitative evaluation data. Currently the LASM database at The University of New Mexico brings important information, originally known mostly within professional networks located in Latin American countries to public health professionals worldwide via the Internet. The LASM database uses Spanish, Portuguese, and English language trilingual, structured abstracts to summarize classic and contemporary works. CONCLUSION: This database provides helpful information for public health professionals on the social determinants of health and expands access to LASM

Genomes of the Most Dangerous Epidemic Bacteria Have a Virulence Repertoire Characterized by Fewer Genes but More Toxin-Antitoxin Modules

We conducted a comparative genomic study based on a neutral approach to identify genome specificities associated with the virulence capacity of pathogenic bacteria. We also determined whether virulence is dictated by rules, or if it is the result of individual evolutionary histories. We systematically compared the genomes of the 12 most dangerous pandemic bacteria for humans ("bad bugs") to their closest non-epidemic related species ("controls").We found several significantly different features in the "bad bugs", one of which was a smaller genome that likely resulted from a degraded recombination and repair system. The 10 Cluster of Orthologous Group (COG) functional categories revealed a significantly smaller number of genes in the "bad bugs", which lacked mostly transcription, signal transduction mechanisms, cell motility, energy production and conversion, and metabolic and regulatory functions. A few genes were identified as virulence factors, including secretion system proteins. Five "bad bugs" showed a greater number of poly (A) tails compared to the controls, whereas an elevated number of poly (A) tails was found to be strongly correlated to a low GC% content. The "bad bugs" had fewer tandem repeat sequences compared to controls. Moreover, the results obtained from a principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the "bad bugs" had surprisingly more toxin-antitoxin modules than did the controls.We conclude that pathogenic capacity is not the result of "virulence factors" but is the outcome of a virulent gene repertoire resulting from reduced genome repertoires. Toxin-antitoxin systems could participate in the virulence repertoire, but they may have developed independently of selfish evolution

Is evolvability evolvable?

In recent years, biologists have increasingly been asking whether the ability to evolve — the evolvability — of biological systems, itself evolves, and whether this phenomenon is the result of natural selection or a by-product of other evolutionary processes. The concept of evolvability, and the increasing theoretical and empirical literature that refers to it, may constitute one of several pillars on which an extended evolutionary synthesis will take shape during the next few years, although much work remains to be done on how evolvability comes about

What’s wrong with evolutionary biology?

There have been periodic claims that evolutionary biology needs urgent reform, and this article tries to account for the volume and persistence of this discontent. It is argued that a few inescapable properties of the field make it prone to criticisms of predictable kinds, whether or not the criticisms have any merit. For example, the variety of living things and the complexity of evolution make it easy to generate data that seem revolutionary (e.g. exceptions to well-established generalizations, or neglected factors in evolution), and lead to disappointment with existing explanatory frameworks (with their high levels of abstraction, and limited predictive power). It is then argued that special discontent stems from misunderstandings and dislike of one well-known but atypical research programme: the study of adaptive function, in the tradition of behavioural ecology. To achieve its goals, this research needs distinct tools, often including imaginary agency, and a partial description of the evolutionary process. This invites mistaken charges of narrowness and oversimplification (which come, not least, from researchers in other subfields), and these chime with anxieties about human agency and overall purpose. The article ends by discussing several ways in which calls to reform evolutionary biology actively hinder progress in the field