Links this week:
- David Dobbs takes on the Selfish Gene. Dawkins responds (as does Jerry Coyne, three times). I’m generally with Dawkins and Coyne on the theme (if not every detail) of this argument. I’d go as far to say that I wish the selfish gene concept would make a comeback in some areas.
- Martin Nowak and E.O Wilson, this time with Ben Allen, have launched another broadside at inclusive fitness. Allen posts on the paper (and if anyone can point me to any commentary on the paper, it would be appreciated – it seems a bit quiet compared to Nowak and Wilson’s paper with Tarnita).
- The Human Behavior and Evolution Society has kicked in some cash (thanks!) to support early career researchers to attend the Cooperation and Conflict in the Family Conference (and applications for that grant are now closed).
- A new journal – Cosmos & Taxis: Studies in Emergent Order and Organization – has launched. The first issue is available.
Otherwise, I’m now back from holidays and almost over some tropical fever I managed to pick up, so regular blogging should recommence in the next few days.
There is this: https://blog.uvm.edu/cgoodnig/2013/12/04/now-i-know-i-am-el-lobo-solitario-i-dont-even-agree-with-allen-nowak-and-wilson/
Thanks. Now I just need to find some responses to this new article from the 130 odd who responded to the Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson piece, which is the silence that I am surprised about.
I don’t think much of what they say is controversial. People make assumptions in models and sometimes these assumptions aren’t very useful for real world applications. Van Veelan has been making essentially the same points for years. Folks I know who read the article sort-of shrugged about it.
In some ways, the article is a response to the 130+ signature Nature article, and takes on one of the main points. And like the original Nowak et al Nature article, there are some pretty strong claims – e.g. “The dominance of inclusive fitness theory has held up progress in this area for many decades. It has consistently suppressed reasonable criticism …” – that I am sure would annoy quite a few people.
I think people might just be tired about the whole thing. Everyone has had their say and there does not seem to be much new here to respond to.
My response is titled: “Nowak and Wilson are at it again”. I don’t know about “not controversial”. Surely the article is simply confused.
[And you can find Tim’s article here. JC]