Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 255–278 | Cite as

Interdisciplinary Lessons for the Teaching of Biology from the Practice of Evo-Devo

  • Alan C. LoveEmail author
Article

Abstract

Evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-devo) is a vibrant area of contemporary life science that should be (and is) increasingly incorporated into teaching curricula. Although the inclusion of this content is important for biological pedagogy at multiple levels of instruction, there are also philosophical lessons that can be drawn from the scientific practices found in Evo-devo. One feature of particular significance is the interdisciplinary nature of Evo-devo investigations and their resulting explanations. Instead of a single disciplinary approach being the most explanatory or fundamental, different methodologies from biological disciplines must be synthesized to generate empirically adequate explanations. Thus, Evo-devo points toward a non-reductionist epistemology in biology. I review three areas where these synthetic efforts become manifest as a result of Evo-devo’s practices (form versus function reasoning styles; problem-structured investigations; idealizations related to studying model organisms), and then sketch some possible applications to teaching biology. These philosophical considerations provide resources for life science educators to address (and challenge) key aspects of the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy.

Keywords

Problem Agenda Phenotypic Plasticity Reasoning Strategy Functional Homology National Science Education Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Douglas Allchin, Ingo Brigandt, Tom Doyle, Kostas Kampourakis, Alessandro Minelli, and Molly Paxton for incisive comments and helpful suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. Although I could not incorporate all of their recommendations, the resulting paper benefited tremendously from those that I did. In particular, Tom Doyle convinced me that much more should be said about how my analysis bears on conventional models of teaching and translates into different classroom contexts. My ignorance of the former and lack of experience with the latter necessitate postponing the requisite discussion to a future date.

References

  1. AAAS Project 2061. (2009). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. (http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/).
  2. Abouheif, E. (1997). Developmental genetics and homology: A hierarchical approach. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12, 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abouheif, E., Akam, M., Dickinson, W. J., Holland, P. W. H., Meyer, A., Patel, N. H., et al. (1997). Homology and developmental genes. Trends in Genetics, 13, 432–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allchin, D. (2003). Lawson’s shoehorn, or should the philosophy of science be rated “X”? Science & Education, 12, 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allchin, D. (2010). The nature of science: From test tubes to youtube. The American Biology Teacher, 72, 590–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allchin, D. (in press). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education.Google Scholar
  7. Allen, C., Bekoff, M., & Lauder, G. V. (Eds.). (1997). Nature’s purposes: Analyses of function and design in biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Allen, W. L., Cuthill, I. C., Scott-Samuel, N. E., & Baddeley, R. (2010). Why the leopard got its spots: relating pattern development to ecology in felids. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.Google Scholar
  9. Amundson, R. (1994). Two concepts of constraint: Adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philosophy of Science, 61, 556–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Amundson, R. (2005). The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: Roots of Evo-devo. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Amundson, R. (2007). Richard Owen and animal form. In R. Owen (Ed.) (1849) On the nature of limbs: A discourse (pp. XV–LI). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Amundson, R., & Lauder, G. V. (1994). Function without purpose: The uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 9, 443–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ariew, A., Cummins, R., & Perlman, M. (Eds.). (2002). Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Arthur, W. (1999). Variable segment number in centipedes: Population genetics meets evolutionary developmental biology. Evolution & Development, 1, 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Arthur, W. (2006). Creatures of accident: The rise of the animal kingdom. New York: Hill and Wang (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux).Google Scholar
  16. Arthur, W. (2011). Evolution: A developmental approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Bock, W. J., & von Wahlert, G. (1965). Adaptation and the form-function complex. Evolution, 19, 269–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bolker, J. A. (1995). Model systems in developmental biology. BioEssays, 17, 451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brigandt, I. (2003). Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental biology. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 299B, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brigandt, I. (2007). Typology now: Homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brigandt, I. (2010a). Beyond reduction and pluralism: Toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenntnis, 73, 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brigandt, I. (2010b). The epistemic goal of a concept: Accounting for the rationality of semantic change and variation. Synthese, 177, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brigandt, I. (this issue). Explanation in biology: Reduction, pluralism, and explanatory aims. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-011-9350-7.
  24. Brigandt, I., & Love, A. C. (2008). Reductionism in biology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/.
  25. Brigandt, I., & Love, A. C. (2010). Evolutionary novelty and the Evo-devo synthesis: field notes. Evolutionary Biology, 37, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Burian, R. M. (1993). How the choice of experimental organism matters: Epistemological reflections on an aspect of biological practice. Journal of the History of Biology, 26, 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless forms most beautiful: The new science of Evo-devo. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  28. Carroll, S. B. (2008). Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: A genetic theory of morphological evolution. Cell, 134, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chipman, A. D., Arthur, W., & Akam, M. (2004). Early development and segment formation in the centipede, Strigamia maritima (Geophilomorpha). Evolution & Development, 6, 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cooke, T. J. (2006). Do Fibonacci numbers reveal the involvement of geometrical imperatives or biological interactions in phyllotaxis? Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 150, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cooper, S., Hanmer, D., & Cerbin, B. (2006). Problem-solving modules in large introductory biology lectures. The American Biology Teacher, 68, 524–529.Google Scholar
  32. Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. Darwin, C. (1964/1859). On the origin of species: A facsimile of the first edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Davis, G. K., & Patel, N. H. (1999). The origin and evolution segmentation. Trends in Genetics, 9, M68–M72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Depew, D. J., & Weber, B. H. (1996). Darwinism evolving: Systems dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Desmond, A. (1997). Huxley: From devil’s disciple to evolution’s high priest. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  37. Dewey, J. (1981/1925). Experience and nature. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 19251953 (Vol. 1). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dupré, J. (2001). In defence of classification. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 32, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Frankino, W. A., & Raff, R. A. (2004). Evolutionary importance and pattern of phenotypic plasticity. In T. J. DeWitt & S. M. Scheiner (Eds.), Phenotypic plasticity: Functional and conceptual approaches (pp. 64–81). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Freeman, S. (2002). Biological science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Furley, D., & Wilkie, J. S. (1984). Galen: On respiration and the arteries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Gilbert, S. F. (2003). Opening Darwin’s black box: Teaching evolution through developmental genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4, 735–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gilbert, S. F., & Epel, D. (2009). Ecological developmental biology: Integrating epigenetics, medicine, and evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  46. Griesemer, J. R. (1996). Periodization and models in historical biology. In M. T. Ghiselin & G. Pinna (Eds.), New perspectives on the history of life (pp. 19–30). San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  47. Griffiths, P. E. (2006). Function, homology, and character individuation. Philosophy of Science, 73, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Griffiths, P. E. (2007). The phenomena of homology. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hall, B. K. (1999). Evolutionary developmental biology (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hautier, L., Weisbecker, V., Sánchez-Villagra, M. R., Goswami, A., & Asher, R. J. (2010). Skeletal development in sloths and the evolution of mammalian vertebral patterning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107, 18903–18908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hopwood, N. (2005). Visual standards and disciplinary change: Normal plates, tables and stages in embryology. History of Science, 43, 239–303.Google Scholar
  52. Hopwood, N. (2007). A history of normal plates, tables and stages in vertebrate embryology. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 51, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hull, D. (1976). Informal aspects of theory reduction. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1974, 653–670.Google Scholar
  54. Jones, M. R. (2005). Idealization and abstraction: a framework. In M. R. Jones & N. Cartwright (Eds.), Idealization XII: Correcting the model. Idealization and abstraction in the sciences (pp. 173–217). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  55. Kampourakis, K., & McComas, W. F. (2010). Charles Darwin and evolution: Illustrating human aspects of science. Science & Education, 19, 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kimmel, C. B., Ballard, W. W., Kimmel, S. R., Ullmann, B., & Schilling, T. F. (1995). Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Developmental Dynamics, 203, 253–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kirschner, M. W., & Gerhart, J. C. (2005). The plausibility of life: Resolving Darwin’s dilemma. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Laubichler, M. D. (2009). Form and function in Evo devo: Historical and conceptual reflections. In M. D. Laubichler & J. Maienschein (Eds.), Form and function in developmental evolution (pp. 10–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Laubichler, M. D. (2010). Evolutionary developmental biology offers a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. In F. J. Ayala & R. Arp (Eds.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology (pp. 199–212). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Laubichler, M. D., & Maienschein, J. (Eds.). (2009). Form and function in developmental evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lawson, A. (2003). Allchin’s shoehorn, or why science is hypothetico-deductive. Science & Education, 12, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lennox, J. G. (1993). Darwin was a teleologist. Biology and Philosophy, 8, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lewens, T. (2004). Organisms and artifacts: Design in nature and elsewhere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Love, A. C. (2003a). Evolutionary morphology, innovation, and the synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 309–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Love, A. C. (2003b). Evolvability, dispositions, and intrinsicality. Philosophy of Science, 70, 1015–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Love, A. C. (2005). Explaining evolutionary innovation and novelty: A historical and philosophical study of biological concepts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Department of History and Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  68. Love, A. C. (2006). Evolutionary morphology and Evo-devo: Hierarchy and novelty. Theory in Biosciences, 124, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Love, A. C. (2007). Functional homology and homology of function: Biological concepts and philosophical consequences. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Love, A. C. (2008a). Explaining evolutionary innovation and novelty: Criteria of explanatory adequacy and epistemological prerequisites. Philosophy of Science, 75, 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Love, A. C. (2008b). Explaining the ontogeny of form: Philosophical issues. In A. Plutynski & S. Sarkar (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to philosophy of biology (pp. 223–247). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  72. Love, A. C. (2008c). From philosophy to science (to natural philosophy): Evolutionary developmental perspectives. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 83, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Love, A. C. (2009a). Typology reconfigured: From the metaphysics of essentialism to the epistemology of representation. Acta Biotheoretica, 57, 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Love, A. C. (2009b). Marine invertebrates, model organisms, and the modern synthesis: Epistemic values, evo-devo, and exclusion. Theory in Biosciences, 128, 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Love, A. C. (2010a). Rethinking the structure of evolutionary theory for an extended synthesis. In M. Pigliucci & G. B. Müller (Eds.), Evolution—the extended synthesis (pp. 403–441). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Love, A. C. (2010b). Idealization in evolutionary developmental investigation: A tension between phenotypic plasticity and normal stages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 679–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Love, A. C. (in press). Darwin’s functional reasoning and homology. In M. Wheeler (Ed.), 150 years of evolution: Darwin’s impact on the humanities and the social sciences. San Diego: SDSU Press.Google Scholar
  78. Lynch, V., & Wagner, G. (2010). Revisiting a classic example of transcription factor functional equivalence: Are eyeless and Pax6 functionally equivalent or divergent? Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 314B.Google Scholar
  79. Mabee, P. M., Olmstead, K. L., & Cubbage, C. C. (2000). An experimental study of intrspecific variation, developmental timing, and heterochrony in fishes. Evolution, 54, 2091–2106.Google Scholar
  80. Maderson, P. F. A., & Homberger, D. G. (2000). The evolutionary origin of feathers: A problem demanding interdisciplinary communication. American Zoologist, 40, 455–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Manak, J. R., & Scott, M. P. (1994). A class act: conservation of homeodomain protein functions. Development (Supplement), 61–71.Google Scholar
  82. McPeek, M. A. (2006). What hypotheses are you willing to entertain? The American Naturalist, 168(Supplement), S1–S3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Minelli, A. (1998). Molecules, developmental modules, and phenotypes: A combinatorial approach to homology. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 9, 340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Minelli, A. (2003). The development of animal form: Ontogeny, morphology, and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Minelli, A. (2009). Forms of becoming: The evolutionary biology of development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Minelli, A., Brena, C., Deflorian, G., Maruzzo, D., & Fusco, G. (2006). From embryo to adult-beyond the conventional periodization of arthropod development. Development Genes and Evolution, 216, 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Minelli, A., & Fusco, G. (2004). Evo-devo perspectives on segmentation: Model organisms, and beyond. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mitchell, S. D. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Müller, G. B. (2007). Evo-devo: Extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 943–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Müller, G. B., & Newman, S. A. (Eds.). (2003). Origination of organismal form: Beyond the gene in developmental and evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Müller, G. B., & Newman, S. A. (2005). The innovation triad: An Evo devo agenda. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 304B, 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Müller, G. B., & Wagner, G. P. (2003). Innovation. In B. K. Hall & W. M. Olsson (Eds.), Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology (pp. 218–227). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Narita, Y., & Kuratani, S. (2005). Evolution of the vertebral formulae in mammals: A perspective on developmental constraints. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 304B, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  95. Owen, R. (2007/1849). On the nature of limbs: A discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  96. Pigliucci, M. (2001). Phenotypic plasticity: Beyond nature and nurture. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Pigliucci, M. (2007). Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution, 61, 2743–2749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. B. (Eds.). (2010). Evolution—the extended synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  99. Reed, R. D., Chen, P–. H., & Nijhout, H. F. (2007). Cryptic variation in butterfly eyespot development: The importance of sample size in gene expression studies. Evolution & Development, 9, 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Reiss, J. O. (2009). Not by design: Retiring Darwin’s watchmaker. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  101. Robert, J. S. (2004). Embryology, epigenesis, and evolution: Taking development seriously. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rosenberg, A., & Neander, K. (2009). Are homologies (selected effect or causal role) function free? Philosophy of Science, 76, 307–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rupke, N. A. (2009). Richard Owen: Biology without Darwin (revised ed). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  104. Ruse, M. (2003). Darwin and design: Does evolution have a purpose?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Russell, E. S. (1982/1916). Form and function: A contribution to the history of animal morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  106. Sarkar, S. (2007). Doubting Darwin? Creationist designs on evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  107. Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2003). Evolution: What’s wrong with ‘teaching the controversy’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 499–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Shubin, N. H. (2008). Your inner fish: A journey into the 3.5-billion-year history of the human body. New York: Vintage Books (Random House).Google Scholar
  109. Steel, D. P. (2008). Across the boundaries: Extrapolation in biology and social science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Van Sittert, S., Skinner, J., & Mitchell, G. (2010). From fetus to adult—an allometric analysis of the giraffe vertebral column. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 314B, 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wagner, G. P. (Ed.). (2001). The character concept in evolutionary biology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  112. Wagner, G. P., Chiu, C.-H., & Laubichler, M. (2000). Developmental evolution as a mechanistic science: The inference from developmental mechanisms to evolutionary processes. American Zoologist, 40, 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Walsh, D. M. (2008). Teleology. In M. Ruse (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of biology (pp. 113–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 639–659.Google Scholar
  115. Wenzel, J. W. (1992). Behavioral homology and phylogeny. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Winther, R. G. (2001). Varieties of modules: Kinds, levels, origins, and behaviors. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 291, 116–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Winther, R. G. (2006). Parts and theories in compositional biology. Biology and Philosophy, 21, 471–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wouters, A. (2003). Four notions of biological function. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 34, 633–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wouters, A. (2005). The function debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica, 53, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wray, G. A. (1999). Evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous structures. In G. R. Bock & G. Cardew (Eds.), Homology (pp. 189–206). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations