{"id":275,"date":"2005-12-27T13:14:55","date_gmt":"2005-12-27T17:14:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/metasj\/2005\/12\/27\/expression-and-censorship-evolutionary"},"modified":"2005-12-27T13:14:55","modified_gmt":"2005-12-27T17:14:55","slug":"expression-and-censorship-evolutionary-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/2005\/12\/27\/expression-and-censorship-evolutionary-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"Expression and censorship : evolutionary theory"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Evolution<\/span>.  A word with
\nsimple origins, narrowed by specific use over time through association
\nwith genes, reproduction, random processes, fitness.  Selection,
\neven “natural selection<\/span>“,
\nlikewise.  Research into, or writing about, certain related
\n‘evolutionary’ theories (for loose definitions of the term) has become
\nsystematically stigmatized — the most insidious form of censorship —
\nsince Morgan’s work in the 1920s.  <\/p>\n

It fascinates me that the successful description and study of one
\nmechanism for key observations about the world often pushes out
\nsupplementary theories, without being fully aware of doing so, like
\nnewborn chicks pushing their siblings out of the nest.  This post
\nis a brief meditation on how this has happened with evolution; with
\nlinks to a few related resources.  I have found myself having
\nrelated conversations a few times over the past weeks, thanks to the
\noften-reductionist debates in the US over
\nwhether to teach the religious doctrine of “creationism<\/span>”
\nin public schools; <\/p>\n

I have no strong feelings about creationism or intelligent design; I am no more or less
\nbothered by its teaching that by the teaching of any other religious
\ndoctrine in schools.  However, in two conversations recently, I
\nfound that well-read friends of mine,
\nwith some talent and experience in biology, had no idea (and indeed,
\nwere momentarily shocked) that scientists still investigate trait
\ntransmissions other than natural selection.   This bothers me
\na great deal.  Both
\ndiscussions quickly turned heated at the suggestion that one
\nmight study anything but selection as a mechanism for biological or
\ngenetic change.  [For an interesting an neutral view of that argument, predating modern preconceptions, see JBS Haldane<\/span>‘s book below, or any writing from the 1880s to the 1920s.]<\/font><\/p>\n

Back to free expression<\/span> of ideas<\/font>
\n— Stigmatization is a common, unconscious way for groups to settle on
\na single set of principles and limit fundamental argument; in science,
\nevolution may be the subfield in which this has had the most profound
\nand widely-felt effect.  Unlike, say, Church-sponsored
\nstigmatization of novel astronomical theories<\/span>
\nduring the Renaissance, the modern stigmatization of novel evolutionary
\ntheories is happily unconscoius; so research proceeds along other
\nlines, and finds funding and interest… but it tends to change its
\nterminology often to avoid being discarded <\/span>out of hand.<\/p>\n

Conrad Waddington<\/span> was one of
\nthe more prominent researchers pursuing such other lines  of
\nresearch in the later 20th century.  His 1975 book “The Evolution of an Evolutionist<\/span>”
\nsays much — in the title he has already begun defending himself from expected attacks on his
\nposition.  In it he describes his changing thoughts about
\nevolution over time.  Among other things, Waddington studied ‘canalization<\/span>‘
\n– a term for the inclination of different members of a given species
\nwith sidely different genes (often sharing no more than 50% of their
\nspecific genes with one another, according to one quote) to develop
\ninto very similar organisms. <\/p>\n

Since the 1930s, when it was still possible
\nto investigate “Lamarckian” transmission of traits without being deeply
\nscorned, researchers have regularly changed the terminology used for
\nsuch studies.  While the definition of evolution became ever more
\nspecific, the terms used for related concepts were in flux… 
\ncurrently, “epigenetic<\/span>” and “neo-evolutionary<\/span>” are two terms one might serach for to unearth ongoing research into alternatives to canonical evolutionary theory.<\/p>\n

Some brief examples :<\/p>\n