The Experts below are selected from a list of 192 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Xuexian Zhang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
microbes are not bound by Sociobiology response to kummerli and ross gillespie 2013
Evolution, 2014Co-Authors: Paul B Rainey, Nicolas Desprat, William W Driscoll, Xuexian ZhangAbstract:In recent years, Sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self-confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production-a paradigmatic public good and social trait-by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from Sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the Sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kummerli and Ross-Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent "Technical Comment" assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry-picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the Sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.
-
Microbes are not bound by Sociobiology: Response to Kümmerli and Ross‐Gillespie (2013)
Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2014Co-Authors: Paul B Rainey, Nicolas Desprat, William W Driscoll, Xuexian ZhangAbstract:In recent years, Sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self-confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production-a paradigmatic public good and social trait-by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from Sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the Sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kummerli and Ross-Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent "Technical Comment" assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry-picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the Sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.
Iver Mysterud - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sociobiology alive and kicking
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002Co-Authors: Iver MysterudAbstract:The Triumph of Sociobiologyby John Alcock. Oxford University Press, 2001. £16.95/US$25.50 hbk (x + 257 pages) ISBN 0 19 514383 3With Ullica Segerstrale's Defenders of the Truth [1xSegerstrale, U. See all References][1], we were given an excellent analysis of the Sociobiology debate, at least from the American and British research regimes. What readers of Segerstrale's book might miss, however, is a general overview of the scientific field of Sociobiology – in short, what the status is of Sociobiology today. The Triumph of Sociobiology is such a book (hereafter Triumph) and the author, John Alcock, is an experienced and well-respected animal behaviourist who is not ashamed of or hesitant towards calling himself a sociobiologist. Alcock's textbook Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach [2xAlcock, J. See all References][2], was released in 1975, the year when all hell broke loose when Edward O. Wilson dared to speculate about human behaviour in the last chapter of his otherwise monumental and excellent synthesis Sociobiology [3xWilson, E.O. See all References][3]. However, Alcock's book received less attention and sparked no controversy. Animal Behavior has informed biologists about animal behaviour for decades, being one of the leading textbooks on the market (now in a sixth edition [4xAlcock, J. See all References][4]). By keeping updated on the impressively broad field that his textbook covers, Alcock is in a unique position to evaluate evolutionary studies of animal behaviour, including human behaviour, and the criticisms that are raised.In Triumph, in addition to presenting the scientific field, he discusses and debunks many myths and misunderstandings about Sociobiology that have arisen since the Sociobiology debate began. The misconceptions addressed include the incorrect propositions that:•Sociobiology is a novel and idiosyncratic theory of E.O. Wilson;•Sociobiology is primarily concerned with human behaviour;•Sociobiology deals with the evolution of traits that benefit the species;•Sociobiology is a reductionist discipline based on the proposition that some behavioural traits are genetically determined;•Sociobiology makes use of capricious and selective comparisons between human behaviour and that of other animals;•Sociobiology is a purely speculative endeavour, specializing in the production of untested, and untestable, just-so stories;•Sociobiology cannot account for learned behaviour or human cultural traditions, only rigid instincts; and•Sociobiology is a discipline that, by labelling certain actions ‘natural’ or ‘evolved,’ makes it possible to justify all manner of unpleasant human behaviour.By dealing with key misunderstandings, Alcock hopes ‘to demonstrate that the discipline employs a basic research approach that deserves our interest, respect, and even admiration as a potential source of improved understanding about ourselves and all other social species, from ants to antelopes’.One name appears regularly throughout the book, that of Stephen Jay Gould – America's ‘Nobel laureate’ in evolutionary biology, whom Alcock considers to have caused major damage to the lay public's understanding of evolution in general and Sociobiology in particular [5xUnpunctuated equilibrium in the Natural History essays of Stephen Jay Gould. Alcock, J. Evo. Human Behav. 1998; 19: 321–336Abstract | Full Text PDFSee all References][5]. As a sociobiologist, Alcock argues that Wilson and his fellow researchers have essentially won the debate with Gould and his academic allies.The book is well written, entertaining, and hits its lay audience with interesting examples and thought-provoking discussion. It is ideal as background material for undergraduate students and seminars for graduate students. An important audience would be all those people who are involved in social sciences and humanistic disciplines – from undergraduates to professors. Misunderstandings flourish, but Alcock clears the road.He goes head on, never afraid of discussing human behaviour in sociobiological perspective. Actually, a large part of the book is devoted to the species that sparked the Sociobiology debate.Let it be clear: this is a partisan book, but a highly needed one. Although the author is rhetoric at times, he is seldom uncritical or unnuanced. If the general arguments of Triumph could be taken as a point of departure and a minimum common ground, we would be spared all kinds of unnecessary controversies about misunderstandings or use of strawmen and instead be able to focus on the real disagreements and differences. Too much time and labour have been devoted to unnecessary discussions since 1975, and it is high time that we move towards the remaining problems concerning evolution and behaviour that are unsettled, interesting and challenging [6xSterelny, K. and Griffiths, P.E. See all References][6]. With Defenders of the Truth [1xSegerstrale, U. See all References][1] and Triumph at hand, it will hopefully be possible for the lay public, students and academics in the social sciences and humanities to better understand what Sociobiology is all about and the debates that it has raised.
-
Triumph of Sociobiology.
Trends in cognitive sciences, 2001Co-Authors: Iver MysterudAbstract:The Triumph of Sociobiologyby John Alcock, Oxford University Press, 2001. £16.95/$25.50 (hbk) (x + 257 pages) ISBN 0 19 514383 3With Ullica Segerstrale's Defenders of the Truth1xSee all References1, we were given an excellent analysis of the Sociobiology debate, at least from the American and British research regimes. What readers of Segerstrale's book might miss, however, is a general overview of the scientific field of Sociobiology – in short, what the status is of Sociobiology today. The Triumph of Sociobiology is such a book (hereafter Triumph) and the author, John Alcock, is an experienced and well-respected animal behaviourist who is not ashamed of or hesitant towards calling himself a sociobiologist. Alcock's text book Animal Behavior: an Evolutionary Approach2xSee all References2, was released in 1975, the year when all hell broke loose when Edward O. Wilson dared to speculate about human behaviour in the last chapter of his otherwise monumental and excellent synthesis Sociobiology3xSee all References3. However, Alcock's book received less attention and sparked no controversy. Animal Behavior has informed biologists about animal behaviour for decades, being one of the leading textbooks on the market (now in a sixth edition4xSee all References4). By keeping updated on the impressively broad field that his text book covers, Alcock is in a unique position to evaluate evolutionary studies of animal behaviour, including human behaviour, and the criticisms that are raised.In Triumph, in addition to presenting the scientific field, he discusses and debunks many myths and misunderstandings about Sociobiology that have arisen since the Sociobiology debate began. The misconceptions addressed include the incorrect propositions that:•Sociobiology is a novel and idiosyncratic theory of E.O. Wilson;•Sociobiology is primarily concerned with human behaviour;•Sociobiology deals with the evolution of traits that benefit the species;•Sociobiology is a reductionist discipline based on the proposition that some behavioural traits are genetically determined;•Sociobiology makes use of capricious and selective comparisons between human behaviour and that of other animals;•Sociobiology is a purely speculative endeavour, specialising in the production of untested, and untestable, just-so stories;•Sociobiology cannot account for learned behaviour or human cultural traditions, only rigid instincts; and•Sociobiology is a discipline that, by labelling certain actions ‘natural’ or ‘evolved,’ makes it possible to justify all manner of unpleasant human behaviour.By dealing with key misunderstandings, Alcock hopes ‘to demonstrate that the discipline employs a basic research approach that deserves our interest, respect, and even admiration as a potential source of improved understanding about ourselves and all other social species, from ants to antelopes’.One name appears regularly throughout the book, that of Stephen Jay Gould – America's ‘Nobel laureate’ in evolutionary biology, whom Alcock considers to have caused major damage to the lay public's understanding of evolution in general and Sociobiology in particular5xUnpunctuated equilibrium in the Natural History essays of Stephen Jay Gould. Alcock, J. Evol. Hum. Behav. 1998; 19: 321–336Abstract | Full Text PDFSee all References5. As a sociobiologist, Alcock argues that Wilson and his fellow researchers have essentially won the debate with Gould and his academic allies.The book is well written, entertaining, and hits its lay audience with interesting examples and thought-provoking discussion. It is ideal as background material for undergraduate students and seminars for graduate students. An important audience would be all those people who are involved in social sciences and humanistic disciplines – from undergraduates to professors. Misunderstandings flourish, but Alcock clears the road. He goes head on, never afraid of discussing human behaviour in sociobiological perspective. Actually, a large part of the book is devoted to the species that sparked the Sociobiology debate.Let it be clear: this is a partisan book, but a highly needed one. Although the author is rhetoric at times, he is seldom uncritical or unnuanced. If the general arguments of Triumph could be taken as a point of departure and a minimum common ground, we would be spared all kinds of unnecessary controversies about misunderstandings or use of strawmen and instead be able to focus on the real disagreements and differences. Too much time and labour have been devoted to unnecessary discussions since 1975, and it is high time that we moved towards the remaining problems concerning evolution and behaviour that are unsettled, interesting and challenging6xSee all References6. With Defenders of the Truth and Triumph at hand, it will hopefully be possible for the lay public, students and academics in the social sciences and humanities to understand better what Sociobiology is all about and the debates that it has raised.
William W Driscoll - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
microbes are not bound by Sociobiology response to kummerli and ross gillespie 2013
Evolution, 2014Co-Authors: Paul B Rainey, Nicolas Desprat, William W Driscoll, Xuexian ZhangAbstract:In recent years, Sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self-confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production-a paradigmatic public good and social trait-by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from Sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the Sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kummerli and Ross-Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent "Technical Comment" assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry-picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the Sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.
-
Microbes are not bound by Sociobiology: Response to Kümmerli and Ross‐Gillespie (2013)
Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2014Co-Authors: Paul B Rainey, Nicolas Desprat, William W Driscoll, Xuexian ZhangAbstract:In recent years, Sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self-confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production-a paradigmatic public good and social trait-by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from Sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the Sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kummerli and Ross-Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent "Technical Comment" assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry-picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the Sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.
Paul B Rainey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
microbes are not bound by Sociobiology response to kummerli and ross gillespie 2013
Evolution, 2014Co-Authors: Paul B Rainey, Nicolas Desprat, William W Driscoll, Xuexian ZhangAbstract:In recent years, Sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self-confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production-a paradigmatic public good and social trait-by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from Sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the Sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kummerli and Ross-Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent "Technical Comment" assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry-picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the Sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.
-
Microbes are not bound by Sociobiology: Response to Kümmerli and Ross‐Gillespie (2013)
Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2014Co-Authors: Paul B Rainey, Nicolas Desprat, William W Driscoll, Xuexian ZhangAbstract:In recent years, Sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self-confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production-a paradigmatic public good and social trait-by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from Sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the Sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kummerli and Ross-Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent "Technical Comment" assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry-picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the Sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.
Nicolas Desprat - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
microbes are not bound by Sociobiology response to kummerli and ross gillespie 2013
Evolution, 2014Co-Authors: Paul B Rainey, Nicolas Desprat, William W Driscoll, Xuexian ZhangAbstract:In recent years, Sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self-confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production-a paradigmatic public good and social trait-by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from Sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the Sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kummerli and Ross-Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent "Technical Comment" assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry-picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the Sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.
-
Microbes are not bound by Sociobiology: Response to Kümmerli and Ross‐Gillespie (2013)
Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2014Co-Authors: Paul B Rainey, Nicolas Desprat, William W Driscoll, Xuexian ZhangAbstract:In recent years, Sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self-confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production-a paradigmatic public good and social trait-by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from Sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the Sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kummerli and Ross-Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent "Technical Comment" assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry-picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the Sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.
