Evolution of sex-specific pace-of-life syndromes: genetic architecture and physiological mechanisms

Sex differences in life history, physiology, and behavior are nearly ubiquitous across taxa, owing to sex-specific selection that arises from different reproductive strategies of the sexes. The pace-of-life syndrome (POLS) hypothesis predicts that most variation in such traits among individuals, populations, and species falls along a slow-fast pace-of-life continuum. As a result of their different reproductive roles and environment, the sexes also commonly differ in pace-of-life, with important consequences for the evolution of POLS. Here, we outline mechanisms for how males and females can evolve differences in POLS traits and in how such traits can covary differently despite constraints resulting from a shared genome. We review the current knowledge of the genetic basis of POLS traits and suggest candidate genes and pathways for future studies. Pleiotropic effects may govern many of the genetic correlations, but little is still known about the mechanisms involved in trade-offs between current and future reproduction and their integration with behavioral variation. We highlight the importance of metabolic and hormonal pathways in mediating sex differences in POLS traits; however, there is still a shortage of studies that test for sex specificity in molecular effects and their evolutionary causes. Considering whether and how sexual dimorphism evolves in POLS traits provides a more holistic framework to understand how behavioral variation is integrated with life histories and physiology, and we call for studies that focus on examining the sex-specific genetic architecture of this integration

Communicating Certainty and Uncertainty in Science in Out-of-School Contexts

This chapter addresses the importance of understanding certainty and uncertainty in relation to scientific evidence, risk in decision-making, and trust in science and scientists. Following a museum-based story about certainty and scientific evidence, two significant international events are described to demonstrate the consequences of failing to understand uncertainty in science. Research into people’s perceptions about the nature of scientific knowledge is revisited to reveal that adults may think less scientifically after a science-related experience, and examine how values and beliefs relating to the certainty/uncertainty of scientific knowledge are inherent in how science is communicated in public places like museums. It is argued that if people are to be encouraged to think more scientifically about the nature of science and its processes, a greater effort is needed to present science in ways that may be interpreted as controversial, and also communicate uncertainty in scientific evidence. The chapter concludes by exploring how a balanced exhibition might be achieved in this difficult process