Advertisement

Teaching Evolutionary Developmental Biology: Concepts, Problems, and Controversy

  • Alan C. LoveEmail author
Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 1)

Abstract

Although sciences are often conceptualized in terms of theory confirmation and hypothesis testing, an equally important dimension of scientific reasoning is the structure of problems that guide inquiry. This problem structure is evident in several concepts central to evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-devo)—constraints, modularity, evolvability, and novelty. Because problems play an important role in biological practice, they should be included in biological pedagogy, especially when treating the issue of scientific controversy. A key feature of resolving controversy is synthesizing methodologies from different biological disciplines to generate empirically adequate explanations. Concentrating on problem structure illuminates this interdisciplinarity in a way that is often ignored when science is taught only from the perspective of theory or hypothesis. These philosophical considerations can assist life science educators in their continuing quest to teach biology to the next generation.

Keywords

Problem Agenda Problem Structure National Science Education Standard Developmental Constraint Evolutionary Novelty 
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 Kostas Kampourakis for the invitation to contribute this chapter. Many of the ideas set forth here emerged in collaboration with my colleague Ingo Brigandt and I acknowledge my debt to him in working out details related to a problem-oriented conception of scientific inquiry. Wallace Arthur and Kostas Kampourakis provided helpful comments and critical feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. AAAS. 2009. Benchmarks for scientific literacy. AAAS Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/.
  2. Alberch, P., and E.A. Gale. 1985. A developmental analysis of an evolutionary trend: Digital reduction in amphibians. Evolution 39: 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allchin, D. 2003. Lawson’s shoehorn, or should the philosophy of science be rated “X”? Science & Education 12: 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allchin, D. 2011. Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science & Education 95(3): 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amundson, R. 1994. Two concepts of constraint: Adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philosophy of Science 61: 556–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amundson, R. 2005. The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: Roots of Evo-Devo. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arthur, W. 2002. The emerging conceptual framework of evolutionary developmental biology. Nature 415: 757–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arthur, W. 2004. Biased embryos and evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arthur, W. 2011. Evolution: A developmental approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Bateson, P., and P. Gluckman. 2011. Plasticity, robustness, development and evolution. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolker, J.A. 2000. Modularity in development and why it matters to Evo-devo. American Zoologist 40: 770–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brigandt, I. 2010. Beyond reduction and pluralism: Toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenntnis 73: 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brigandt, I., and A.C. Love. 2010. Evolutionary novelty and the Evo-devo synthesis: Field notes. Evolutionary Biology 37: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brigandt, I., and A.C. Love, 2012a. Reductionism in biology. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/
  15. Brigandt, I., and A.C. Love. 2012b. Conceptualizing evolutionary novelty: Moving beyond definitional debates. Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part B, Molecular and Developmental Evolution 318: 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carroll, S.B. 2005. Endless forms most beautiful: The new science of Evo-devo. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  17. Davidson, E.H. 2006. The regulatory genome: Gene regulatory networks in development and evolution. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  18. De Robertis, E.M. 2008. Evo-devo: Variations on ancestral themes. Cell 132: 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman, S. 2002. Biological science. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Gerhart, J., and M. Kirschner. 2007. The theory of facilitated variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 8582–8589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, S.F. 2003. Opening Darwin’s black box: Teaching evolution through developmental genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics 4: 735–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gompel, N., B. Prud’homme, P.J. Wittkopp, V.A. Kassner, and S.B. Carroll. 2005. Chance caught on the wing: Cis-regulatory evolution and the origin of pigment patterns in Drosophila. Nature 433: 481–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gould, S.J. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hattiangadi, J.N. 1978. The structure of problems, part I. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 8: 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hattiangadi, J.N. 1979. The structure of problems, part II. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 9: 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hendrikse, J.L., T.E. Parsons, and B. Hallgrímmson. 2007. Evolvability as the proper focus of evolutionary developmental biology. Evolution & Development 9: 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoekstra, H.E., and J.A. Coyne. 2007. The locus of evolution: Evo-devo and the genetics of adaptation. Evolution 61: 995–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holton, Martha Adelaide, and Charles Madison Curry. 1914. Blind men and an elephant. In Holton-Curry readers, 108. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.Google Scholar
  29. Kirschner, M., and J. Gerhart. 1998. Evolvability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 8420–8427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirschner, M.W., and J.C. Gerhart. 2005. The plausibility of life: Resolving Darwin’s dilemma. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kuratani, S. 2009. Modularity, comparative embryology and evo-devo: Developmental dissection of evolving body plans. Developmental Biology 332: 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laubichler, M.D. 2009. Form and function in Evo devo: Historical and conceptual reflections. In Form and function in developmental evolution, ed. M.D. Laubichler and J. Maienschein, 10–46. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laubichler, M.D. 2010. Evolutionary developmental biology offers a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. In Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology, ed. F.J. Ayala and R. Arp, 199–212. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lawson, A. 2003. Allchin’s shoehorn, or why science is hypothetico-deductive. Science & Education 12: 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Love, A.C. 2003. Evolutionary morphology, innovation, and the synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology. Biology and Philosophy 18: 309–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Love, A.C. 2007. Morphological and paleontological perspectives for a history of Evo-devo. In From embryology to Evo-devo: A history of developmental evolution, ed. M. Laubichler and J. Maienschein, 267–307. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Love, A.C. 2008a. Explaining evolutionary innovation and novelty: Criteria of explanatory adequacy and epistemological prerequisites. Philosophy of Science 75: 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Love, A.C. 2008b. From philosophy to science (to natural philosophy): Evolutionary developmental perspectives. The Quarterly Review of Biology 83: 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Love, A.C. 2009. Marine invertebrates, model organisms, and the modern synthesis: Epistemic values, evo-devo, and exclusion. Theory in Biosciences 128: 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Love, A.C. 2013a. Interdisciplinary lessons for the teaching of biology from the practice of Evo-devo. Science & Education 22(2): 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Love, A.C. 2013b. Theory is as theory does: Scientific practice and theory structure in biology. Biological Theory. doi:10.1007/s13752-012-0046-2.Google Scholar
  43. Love, A.C., and R.A. Raff. 2003. Knowing your ancestors: Themes in the history of Evo-devo. Evolution & Development 5: 327–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lynch, M. 2007. The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 8597–8604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maynard Smith, J., R. Burian, S. Kauffman, P. Alberch, J. Campbell, B. Goodwin, R. Lande, D. Raup, and L. Wolpert. 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayo, D. 1996. Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Metscher, B.D., and P.E. Ahlberg. 1999. Zebrafish in context: Uses of a laboratory model in comparative studies. Developmental Biology 210: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Minelli, A. 2009. Forms of becoming: The evolutionary biology of development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Minelli, A. 2010. Evolutionary developmental biology does not offer a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. In Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology, ed. F.J. Ayala and R. Arp, 213–226. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Mulder, B. 2008. On growth and force. Science 322: 1643–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Müller, G.B. 2007. Evo-devo: Extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics 8: 943–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Müller, G.B., and S.A. Newman. 2005. The innovation triad: An EvoDevo agenda. Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part B, Molecular and Developmental Evolution 304B: 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Newman, S.A. 1994. Generic physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis: A common basis for development and evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 7: 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Newman, S.A., and R. Bhat. 2009. Dynamical patterning modules: A “pattern language” for development and evolution of multicellular form. International Journal of Developmental Biology 53: 693–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Newman, S.A., G. Forgacs, and G.B. Müller. 2006. Before programs: The physical origination of multicellular forms. International Journal of Developmental Biology 50: 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nickles, T. 1981. What is a problem that we may solve it? Synthese 47: 85–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. NRC. 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (National Research Council).Google Scholar
  58. NRC, 2008. The role of theory in advancing 21st-century biology: Catalyzing transformative research. Washington, DC: Committee on Defining and Advancing the Conceptual Basis of Biological Sciences in the 21st Century: National Research Council, National Academies of Science.Google Scholar
  59. Osbeck, L.M., N.J. Nersessian, K.R. Malone, and W.C. Newstetter. 2011. Science as psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Popper, K. 2002 [1963]. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Prum, R.O., and A.H. Brush. 2002. The evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. The Quarterly Review of Biology 77: 261–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raff, R.A. 2000. Evo-Devo: The evolution of a new discipline. Nature Reviews Genetics 1: 74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Raff, R.A. 2007. Written in stone: Fossils, genes, and evo-devo. Nature Reviews Genetics 8: 911–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raff, R.A. 2008. Origins of the other metazoan body plans: The evolution of larval forms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 363: 1473–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Raff, E.C., E.M. Popodi, J.S. Kauffman, B.J. Sly, F.R. Turner, V.B. Morris, and R.A. Raff. 2003. Regulatory punctuated equilibrium and convergence in the evolution of developmental pathways in direct-developing sea urchins. Evolution & Development 5: 478–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sarkar, S. 2007. Doubting Darwin? Creationist designs on evolution. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. Savin, T., N.A. Kurpios, A.E. Shyer, P. Florescu, H. Liang, L. Mahadevan, and C. Tabin. 2011. On the growth and form of the gut. Nature 476: 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scott, E.C., and G. Branch. 2003. Evolution: What’s wrong with ‘teaching the controversy’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 499–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Shubin, N., C. Tabin, and S. Carroll. 2009. Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature 457: 818–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stearns, S.C. 1992. The evolution of life histories. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Stern, D.L. 2011. Evolution, development, and the predictable genome. Greenwood Village: Roberts and Company Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Telford, M.J., and G.E. Budd. 2003. The place of phylogeny and cladistics in Evo-Devo research. International Journal of Developmental Biology 47: 479–490.Google Scholar
  74. Wagner, G.P. 2000. What is the promise of developmental evolution? Part I: Why is developmental biology necessary to explain evolutionary innovations? Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part B, Molecular and Developmental Evolution 288: 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wagner, G.P., and V.J. Lynch. 2010. Evolutionary novelties. Current Biology 20: R48–R52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wagner, G., and J. Zhang. 2011. The pleiotropic structure of the genotype-phenotype map: The evolvability of complex organisms. Nature Reviews Genetics 12: 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wagner, G.P., C.-H. Chiu, and M. Laubichler. 2000. Developmental evolution as a mechanistic science: The inference from developmental mechanisms to evolutionary processes. American Zoologist 40: 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations