%0 Journal Article %1 berry1987where %A Berry, R. J. %D 1987 %I Blackwell Publishing Ltd %J Biological Journal of the Linnean Society %K allozymes island_adaptation island_mice neutral_theory review selectionism %N 3 %P 257--274 %R 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00300.x %T Where biology meets; or how science advances: Presidential Address to the Linnean Society delivered at the Anniversary Meeting, 24th May 1985 %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00300.x %V 30 %X Major advances in ‘unrestricted’ sciences like biology commonly occur when individual scientists (or techniques) cross conventional discipline boundaries; intra-discipline studies are essential for the consolidation and progress of the science, but are less likely to produce significant insights. ‘Restricted’ (or exact) sciences ignore variation, and are probably less sensitive to warping from specialization. This generalization is illustrated by recent controversies in evolutionary biology, particularly the neutralism debates of the 1970s, where over-rigid adherence to theoretical models and unjustified assumptions about the effects of gene action were made. The consequence of some of these is shown by considering genetic changes in house mouse (Mus domesticus) populations which were used to demonstrate apparent drift operating on neutral traits, whereas longitudinal studies of closed populations proved that strong natural selection may operate; a proper understanding of genetical forces requires a knowledge both of the history of particular populations and of environmental pressures varying in time and space. At the height of neutralist euphoria in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the house mouse (Mus domesticus)* was frequently quoted as an exemplar of neutral evolution. The main reason for this was the apparently random variation in allele frequencies at both the geographical (Wheeler & Selander, 1972) and ecological levels (Anderson, 1964; Selander, 1970), linked with heterozygote deficiency and evidence of tight deme structure (Petras, 1967; DeFries & McClearn, 1972) which indicated that selection was not affecting breeding success. The interpretation that genetic variation in the mouse was neutral was wholly correct from the data available at the time, but in retrospect the data themselves can be seen to be too limited for firm conclusions. The belief that “the effective population size in natural populations of house mice is less than four” (DeFries & McClearn, 1972) was based on laboratory experiments and commensal populations, whereas virtually every longitudinal study of mice living in a reasonably stressful environment has shown a degree of population churning. For example, Lidicker (1976) found a small amount of gene flow between established social groups, and more extensive genetic mixing through the formation of new social groups. But even more important, other experiments have provided direct evidence of selection acting on mice. Rather ironically, at the same time that Petras and Selander were carrying out their work which indicated that biochemical variants were non-adaptive in mice, I was studying some of the same variants, and producing evidence that they were subject to natural selection.

@article{berry1987where, abstract = {Major advances in ‘unrestricted’ sciences like biology commonly occur when individual scientists (or techniques) cross conventional discipline boundaries; intra-discipline studies are essential for the consolidation and progress of the science, but are less likely to produce significant insights. ‘Restricted’ (or exact) sciences ignore variation, and are probably less sensitive to warping from specialization. This generalization is illustrated by recent controversies in evolutionary biology, particularly the neutralism debates of the 1970s, where over-rigid adherence to theoretical models and unjustified assumptions about the effects of gene action were made. The consequence of some of these is shown by considering genetic changes in house mouse (Mus domesticus) populations which were used to demonstrate apparent drift operating on neutral traits, whereas longitudinal studies of closed populations proved that strong natural selection may operate; a proper understanding of genetical forces requires a knowledge both of the history of particular populations and of environmental pressures varying in time and space. At the height of neutralist euphoria in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the house mouse (Mus domesticus)* was frequently quoted as an exemplar of neutral evolution. The main reason for this was the apparently random variation in allele frequencies at both the geographical (Wheeler & Selander, 1972) and ecological levels (Anderson, 1964; Selander, 1970), linked with heterozygote deficiency and evidence of tight deme structure (Petras, 1967; DeFries & McClearn, 1972) which indicated that selection was not affecting breeding success. The interpretation that genetic variation in the mouse was neutral was wholly correct from the data available at the time, but in retrospect the data themselves can be seen to be too limited for firm conclusions. The belief that “the effective population size in natural populations of house mice is less than four” (DeFries & McClearn, 1972) was based on laboratory experiments and commensal populations, whereas virtually every longitudinal study of mice living in a reasonably stressful environment has shown a degree of population churning. For example, Lidicker (1976) found a small amount of gene flow between established social groups, and more extensive genetic mixing through the formation of new social groups. But even more important, other experiments have provided direct evidence of selection acting on mice. Rather ironically, at the same time that Petras and Selander were carrying out their work which indicated that biochemical variants were non-adaptive in mice, I was studying some of the same variants, and producing evidence that they were subject to natural selection.}, added-at = {2016-03-22T04:17:28.000+0100}, author = {Berry, R. J.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/26d9ddf60a17c32297da821eaaad33d3b/peter.ralph}, doi = {10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00300.x}, interhash = {5ca68e7ae110534cbd702cf67ca30770}, intrahash = {6d9ddf60a17c32297da821eaaad33d3b}, issn = {1095-8312}, journal = {Biological Journal of the Linnean Society}, keywords = {allozymes island_adaptation island_mice neutral_theory review selectionism}, number = 3, pages = {257--274}, publisher = {Blackwell Publishing Ltd}, timestamp = {2016-03-22T04:17:28.000+0100}, title = {Where biology meets; or how science advances: {Presidential} Address to the {Linnean} Society delivered at the Anniversary Meeting, 24th {May} 1985}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00300.x}, volume = 30, year = 1987 }