Why are women smaller than men? When anthropology meets evolutionary biology

There are large variations of size among humans but in all populations, men are larger on average than women. For most biologists this fact can be easily explained by the same processes that explain the size dimorphism in large mammals in general and in apes in particular. Due to fights between males for the possession of females, sexual selection has favoured bigger males. Indeed, this factor certainly explains why males are selected for being large but lets aside the question of selection on the female side. Actually, it has been shown that larger females are also favoured by natural selection. This is particularly relevant for women because their probability of dying when giving birth is then reduced. In this paper, the common view that size dimorphism in humans results from the fact that the advantage of being big is stronger for men than for women is challenged by another hypothesis, namely that the difference results from a difference of cost rather than from a difference of benefits. The cost of being big would be higher in women simply because, under gender hierarchical regimes found in all cultures, men are allocated the best food. The interaction between evolutionary forces and cultural practices could then lead to this disadaptive situation

La démarche « Sciences & Citoyens » au CNRS : des chercheurs edgariens décomplexés

Les rencontres « Science & citoyens » du CNRS, lancées il y a vingt ans par Edgar Morin, constituent une expérimentation en vraie grandeur de l’interdisciplinarité et de l’interaction du débat entre scientifiques et entre scientifiques et citoyens. Une telle démarche devient de plus en plus nécessaire à une époque où les échanges entre sciences de la nature et sciences humaines deviennent primordiaux pour l’avenir de notre société

Biodiversity and Pesticides—Why We Are Wrong

Biodiversity is a dynamic process that has been collapsing at a remarkably high speed for the last thirty years. How can 80% of the insect biomass in protected areas of Europe vanish in such a short period of time? In the meantime, honeybee colonies are collapsing. In each case, the usual answer is that the causes are multifactorial and that more research is needed—a statement that easily satisfies the scientific community. The aim of this paper is to show that, in fact, this consensus results from the manipulation of the scientific management system by social engineers working for the agrochemical industry. Such techniques have been in use since 1953 when they served to hide the major effects of tobacco concerning lung cancer. Indeed, lung cancer, like biodiversity collapse, is multifactorial. However, one cause is more important than all others. By insisting on the multifactorial aspect and by manipulating the research system, this fact remains hidden. This process has been documented by journalists and sociologists but remains largely ignored by the community of biologists who are immersed in it and thus largely ignore it

La biodiversité clans sa perspective historique

International audienceLe centre INRA de Versailles a organisé, en collaboration avec le rectorat de Versailles, des journées d'information pour les enseignants de sciences naturelles et de biologie. Celle du 6 avril 1994 était consacrée au thème de la biodiversité. P.-H. Gouyon, professeur et responsable du laboratoire « Evolution et systématique des végétaux » à l'université de Paris-Sud Orsay, intervenait en introduction de la journée pour replacer la biodiversité dans une perspective historique. Voici la presque totalité de son intervention, retranscrite d'après un enregistrement magnétique par Brigitte Cauvin

Les données scientifiques. Présentation de la recherche

Gouyon Pierre-Henri. Les données scientifiques. Présentation de la recherche. In: Revue Juridique de l'Environnement, n°3, 1993. pp. 351-352