Save
Email
Print
ShareMar. 26, 2011 — In 1964, biologist William Hamilton introduced Inclusive Fitness Theory to predict and explain phenomena ranging from animal behavior to patterns of gene expression. With its many successes, the theory became a cornerstone for modern biology. In August 2010, Harvard researchers challenged the theory in the journal Nature. Now Nature has published sharp rebuttals from scores of scientists, including Edward Allen Herre and William Wcislo, staff scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.
"Bees are probably the most useful group for studying why eusocial organisms have workers that do not reproduce, but the authors got a lot of their basic facts about bees wrong. For example, the authors argue that having defensible nests is the most important consideration for eusociality, but they ignore the fact that there are thousands of nest making animals that are not eusocial," said Wcislo, a specialist in the biology of bees.
Says co-author, Edward Allen Herre, "Challenging existing paradigms is an essential part of a healthy scientific process. However, the burden is on the challengers to present a better alternative, particularly when a paradigm has been as successful as Inclusive Fitness has been. Both the factual and theoretical basis of the case for their proposed alternatives falls apart with even mild scrutiny. They simply do not make their case. But their challenge is still useful because crucial parts of the theory come out stronger for having been tested, and researchers can better see where more studies are needed."
The Smithsonian has recently established formal collaborations with Arizona State University to study social insects and the phenomenon of eusociality. Researchers expect that this collaboration will produce studies with a direct bearing on the issues raised in this debate.
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Journal References:
- Patrick Abbot, Jun Abe, John Alcock, Samuel Alizon, Joao A. C. Alpedrinha, Malte Andersson, Jean-Baptiste Andre, Minus van Baalen, Francois Balloux, Sigal Balshine, Nick Barton, Leo W. Beukeboom, Jay M. Biernaskie, Trine Bilde, Gerald Borgia, Michael Breed, Sam Brown, Redouan Bshary, Angus Buckling, Nancy T. Burley, Max N. Burton-Chellew, Michael A. Cant, Michel Chapuisat, Eric L. Charnov, Tim Clutton-Brock et al. Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality. Nature, 2011; 471 (7339): E1 DOI: 10.1038/nature09831
- Jacobus J. Boomsma, Madeleine Beekman, Charlie K. Cornwallis, Ashleigh S. Griffin, Luke Holman, William O. H. Hughes, Laurent Keller, Benjamin P. Oldroyd, Francis L. W. Ratnieks. Only full-sibling families evolved eusociality. Nature, 2011; 471 (7339): E4 DOI: 10.1038/nature09832
- Joan E. Strassmann, Robert E. Page, Gene E. Robinson, Thomas D. Seeley. Kin selection and eusociality. Nature, 2011; 471 (7339): E5 DOI: 10.1038/nature09833
- Regis Ferriere, Richard E. Michod. Inclusive fitness in evolution. Nature, 2011; 471 (7339): E6 DOI: 10.1038/nature09834
- Edward Allen Herre, William T. Wcislo. In defence of inclusive fitness theory. Nature, 2011; 471 (7339): E8 DOI: 10.1038/nature09835
- Martin A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarnita, Edward O. Wilson. Nowak et al. reply. Nature, 2011; 471 (7339): E9 DOI: 10.1038/nature09836
- Martin A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarnita, Edward O. Wilson. The evolution of eusociality. Nature, 2010; 466 (7310): 1057 DOI: 10.1038/nature09205
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
more 
