Skip to main content
Log in

Development and microbiology

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On the basis of findings from developmental biology, some researchers have argued that evolutionary theory needs to be significantly updated. Advocates of such a “developmental update” have, among other things, suggested that we need to re-conceptualize units of selection, that we should expand our view of inheritance to include environmental as well as genetic and epigenetic factors, that we should think of organisms and their environment as involved in reciprocal causation, and that we should reevaluate the rates of evolutionary change. However, many of these same conclusions could be reached on the basis of other evidence, namely from microbiology. In this paper, I ask why microbiological evidence has not had a similarly large influence on calls to update biological theory, and argue that there is no principled reason to focus on developmental as opposed to microbiological evidence in support of these revisions to evolutionary theory. I suggest that the focus on developmental biology is more likely attributable to historical accident. I will also discuss some possible room for overlap between developmental and microbiology, despite the historical separation of these two subdisciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See also experiments utilizing mutator strains, e.g. Sniegowski et al. (1997); thanks to Maureen O’Malley for this suggestion.

  2. Others have used a narrower conception of development, one which only focuses on how the shape, size, structure, and anatomy of organisms, especially their morphological features, come to be. This is plausibly the result of a focus on the ontogeny of form in developmental biology. For narrower conceptions along these lines, see, e.g., Robert (2004); Love (2007, 2020).

  3. For a more comprehensive history of DST, including more details on these early thinkers, see Johnston (2001, 2009), Gottlieb (2001), Lehrman (2001), and Griffiths and Tabery (2013).

  4. For instance, Gray (1992); Griffiths and Knight (1998); Godfrey-Smith (2000); Oyama et al. (2001); Robert et al. (2001); Stotz (2008); Johnston (2009); Pradeu (2010); Griffiths and Hochman (2015).

  5. For some nuances regarding this empirical support, see Watkins (2021b).

  6. Including evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”), which “extensively treats the genomic correlates of gross morphological variation across phyla, with little or no discussion of behavior, physiology, life histories, and the kind of variation within populations that is required for natural selection to work” (p. 89).

  7. Regarding the overlapping research programs of developmental and molecular biology, see Love (2020).

  8. For philosophical work on evo-devo, see, e.g., Love (2015); Love (2017).

  9. For a discussion of the relationship between developmental biology and expanded views of inheritance, see Jablonka (2007).

  10. There is some interesting new work on integrating developmental biology and paleontology in discussions surrounding rates (e.g., Jablonski 2020; Jackson 2020). For example, developmental biologists may be able to study “evolvability,” which then can affect paleontologists’ prediction of rates. Nevertheless, these issues largely have not been picked up by developmental update proponents as such. For further discussion of the relationship between developmental biology and paleontology, see Watkins (2021a).

  11. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this possible explanation.

  12. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper greatly benefited from feedback by Rachell Powell, Maureen O’Malley, and Alan Love, as well as comments from two anonymous re- viewers and Associate Editor Emily Parke.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foun- dation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE- 1840990. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations ex- pressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aja Watkins.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watkins, A. Development and microbiology. Biol Philos 36, 34 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-021-09809-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-021-09809-y

Keywords

Navigation