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

Organisms in experimental research

Rachel A. Ankeny and Sabina Leonell

Learning from Data Journeys

This is the final version. Available on open access from Springer via the DOI in this recordThis chapter discusses the idea of data journeys as an investigative tool and a theoretical framework for this volume and broader scholarship on data. Building on a relational and historicized understanding of data as lineages, I reflect on the methodological, conceptual and social challenges involved in mapping, analysing and comparing the production, movement and use of data within and across research fields - and some of the strategies developed to cope with such difficulties. I then provide an overview of the significant variation among the data practices garnered in this volume. Specific nodes of difference and similarity across data journeys are identified, while also emphasising the extent to which such commonalities are dependent on specific situations of inquiry. In closing, I highlight the significance of this approach towards addressing concerns raised by data-centric science and the emergence of big and open data.European CommissionAlan Turing Institut

The many faces of biological individuality

Biological individuality is a major topic of discussion in biology and philosophy of biology. Recently, several objections have been raised against traditional accounts of biological individuality, including the objections of monism (the tendency to focus on a single individuality criterion and/or a single biological field), theory-centrism (the tendency to discuss only theory-based individuation), ahistoricity (the tendency to neglect what biologists of the past and historians of biology have said about biological individuality), disciplinary isolationism (the tendency to isolate biological individuality from other scientific and philosophical domains that have investigated individuality), and the multiplication of conceptual uncertainties (the lack of a precise definition of “biological individual” and related terms). In this introduction, I will examine the current philosophical landscape about biological individuality, and show how the contributions gathered in this special issue address these five objections. Overall, the aim of this issue is to offer a more diverse, unifying, and scientifically informed conception of what a biological individual is

The structure of idealization in biological theories: the case of the Wright-Fisher model.

In this paper we present a new framework of idealization in biology. We characterize idealizations as a network of counterfactual and hypothetical conditionals that can exhibit different “degrees of contingency”. We use this idea to say that, in departing more or less from the actual world, idealizations can serve numerous epistemic, methodological or heuristic purposes within scientific research. We defend that, in part, this structure explains why idealizations, despite being deformations of reality, are so successful in scientific practice. For illustrative purposes, we provide an example from population genetics, the Wright-Fisher Mode

Epigenetics: Embedded bodies and the molecularisation of biography and milieu

The molecular biological field of epigenetics has recently attracted attention not only in biology, but also in the broader scientific community and the popular press. Commentators paint a very heterogeneous picture with some arguing that epigenetics is nothing but another aspect of gene regulation, and others enthusiastically proclaiming a paradigmatic shift in developmental biology. This article analyses a particular approach to environmental epigenetics – a subfield of epigenetics that is central to the recent excitement. The focus lies on an ethnographic analysis of research practices that enable a particular lab group to study the impact of different levels of context, for example, changes in the social and material environment, on epigenetic modification and thus phenotypic variation. The article argues that changes in the practice of doing epigenetic biology contribute to a molecularisation of biography and milieu, suggest the configuration of somatic sociality and produce a different concept of the body: the embedded body. This article concludes with a brief discussion of customary biology as a potential new research agenda at the interface of material and social inquiry.Peer Reviewe