Abstract
Organisms can be treated as optimizers when there is consensus among their genes about what is best to be done, but genomic consensus is often lacking, especially in interactions among kin because kin share some genes but not others. Grafen adopts a majoritarian perspective in which an individual’s interests are identified with the interests of the largest coreplicon of its genome, but genomic imprinting and recombination factionalize the genome so that no faction may predominate in some interactions among kin. Once intragenomic conflicts are recognized, the individual organism can be conceptualized as an arbiter among competing interests within a collective. Organismal adaptation can be recognized without phenotypes being optimized.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burt A, Trivers R (2006) Genes in conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Cosmides LM, Tooby J (1981) Cytoplasmic inheritance and intragenomic conflict. J Theor Biol 89:83–129
Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Eshel I (1996) On the changing concept of evolutionary population stability as a reflection of a changing point of view in the quantitative theory of evolution. J Math Biol 34:485–510
Gardner A, Welch JJ (2011) A formal theory of the selfish gene. J Evol Biol 24:1801–1813
Grafen A (2006) Optimization of inclusive fitness. J Theor Biol 238:541–563
Grafen A (2014) The formal darwinism project in outline. Biol Philos 29(2). doi:10.1007/s10539-013-9414-y
Hackett JA, Sengupta R, Zylicz JJ, Murakami K, Lee C et al (2013) Germline DNA demethylation dynamics and imprint erasure through 5-hydroxymethylcytosine. Science 339:448–452
Haig D (1996) Gestational drive and the green-bearded placenta. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:6547–6551
Haig D (1997) Parental antagonism, relatedness asymmetries, and genomic imprinting. Proc R Soc B 264:1657–1662
Haig D (1999) Multiple paternity and genomic imprinting. Genetics 151:1229–1231
Haig D (2000) Genomic imprinting, sex-biased dispersal, and social behavior. Ann NY Acad Sci 907:149–163
Haig D (2006) Intragenomic politics. Cytogenet Genome Res 113:68–74
Haig D (2011) Sympathy with Adam Smith and reflexions on self. J Econ Organ Behav 77:4–13
Haig D (2012) The strategic gene. Biol Philos 27:61–479
Haig D, Grafen A (1991) Genetic scrambling as a defence against meiotic drive. J Theor Biol 153:531–558
Lloyd E (2005) Why the gene will not return. Philos Sci 72:287–310
Maynard Smith J (1987) How to model evolution. In: Dupre J (ed) The latest on the best: essays on evolution and optimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 119–131
Sober E, Lewontin RC (1982) Artifact, cause, and genic selection. Philos Sci 49:157–180
Sterelny K, Kitcher P (1988) The return of the gene. J Philos 85:339–361
Traulsen A, Reed FA (2012) From genes to games: cooperation and cyclic dominance in meiotic drive. J Theor Biol 299:120–125
Waters CK (2005) Why genic and multi-level selection theories are here to stay. Philos Sci 72:311–333
Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Acknowledgments
The manuscript has benefited from the comments of Samir Okasha and Eneida Pardo.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haig, D. Genetic dissent and individual compromise. Biol Philos 29, 233–239 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9418-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9418-7