Lewontin Research Articles

Previously unmeasured genetic diversity explains part of Lewontin's paradox in a -mer-based meta-analysis of 112 plant species.

At the molecular level, most evolution is expected to be neutral. A key prediction of this expectation is that the level of genetic diversity in a population should scale with population size. However, as was noted by Richard Lewontin in 1974 and reaffirmed by later studies, the slope of the population size-diversity relationship in nature is much weaker than expected under neutral theory. We hypothesize that one contributor to this paradox is that current methods relying on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) called from aligning short reads to a reference genome underestimate levels of genetic diversity in many species. To test this idea, we calculated nucleotide diversity ( ) and -mer-based metrics of genetic diversity across 112 plant species, amounting to over 205 terabases of DNA sequencing data from 27,488 individual plants. We then compared how these different metrics correlated with proxies of population size that account for both range size and population density variation across species. We found that our population size proxies scaled anywhere from about 3 to over 20 times faster with -mer diversity than nucleotide diversity after adjusting for evolutionary history, mating system, life cycle habit, cultivation status, and invasiveness. The relationship between -mer diversity and population size proxies also remains significant after correcting for genome size, whereas the analogous relationship for nucleotide diversity does not. These results suggest that variation not captured by common SNP-based analyses explains part of Lewontin's paradox in plants.

Correction to: Richard Lewontin and Theodosius Dobzhansky: Genetics, Race, and the Anxiety of Influence

Correction to: Richard Lewontin and Theodosius Dobzhansky: Genetics, Race, and the Anxiety of Influence

A substituição nua: o apoio de geneticistas e biotecnólogos à eugenia da Segunda Guerra Mundial ao Projeto Genoma Humano

ABSTRACT Using a combination of archival and secondary sources, this article argues that scientists and bioethicists after the Second World War advocated a wide variety of eugenic practices and strongly supported the development of eugenics, strengthened by advances in medicine, human genetics, and population genetics. I detail extensive research in both the Curt Stern and the American Eugenics Society Papers (American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia), uncovering novel defenses of eugenics and its integration in sciences after the Second World War by key figures such as Curt Stern and Theodosius Dobzhansky. Moreover, I relate to Richard Lewontin’s participation in a Princeton conference sponsored by the American Eugenics Society in 1965. This article is also the first to not only describe geneticists’ defense and development of eugenic ideas but also details bioethicists’ defense of this inhumane and unscientific ideology until the dawn of the Human Genome Project in the late 1980s.

Is The Dialectical Biologist Dialectical? Reexamining the Legacy of 20th Century ‘Marxist’ Biology

Since its publication in 1985, evolutionary biologists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin’s book The Dialectical Biologist has remained a key reference in the history and philosophy of biology. Nevertheless, one of the book’s central claims, that it embodies a Marxist dialectical materialist approach to biology, and to science in general, has remained contested, being treated as confused or ambiguous at best. Addressing this common reaction to the The Dialectical Biologist, this paper seeks to make explicit the ways in which the book, on the level of both form and content, can be considered to embody a genuine dialectical approach to science. It outlines Levins and Lewontin’s commitment to a clearly defined version of dialectical materialism, related to the principles put forward by Friedrich Engels. It then situates this version of dialectical materialism within the context of debates on the relation between dialectics and the natural sciences within Marxist theory. Against this theoretical background, the The Dialectical Biologist is cast as an attempt to embody just the kind of dialectical analysis of the natural sciences demanded by its philosophical commitments. Importantly, this dialectical aspect only becomes clear through close attention to the text on the multiple levels of content, style, and argumentative structure. This paper’s reading of the dialectical approach to science aims to facilitate fruitful engagement with an important text in the history of 20th century biology, particularly in a time where Lewontin’s work and legacy is being remembered and re-examined.

An Exploration of the Effects of Gene-Editing Technology on Human Identity

An Exploration of the Effects of Gene-Editing Technology on Human Identity

The God of Chance and Purpose: Divine Involvement in a Secular Evolutionary World

The God of Chance and Purpose: Divine Involvement in a Secular Evolutionary World

Pandemic Capitalism: Metabolic Rift, World-Ecology Crossing Dialectical Biology

Abstract In this article, I contrast two of the main schools of thought within eco-Marxism, namely Metabolic Rift (MR) and World-Ecology (WE). These differ above all else in their accounts of the ontological status of society and nature. The Covid-19 pandemic constitutes a moment of concretisation of this long-standing debate, which is able to dissolve at least in part its issues. The article consists of four parts. I begin with a summary of the two schools of thought and their core stances, before proceeding to unpack their respective theoretical points of contention. I subsequently proceed to explore the conceptualisation of health according to the Marxist scientists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin through the model of dialectical biology. In the third section, I unpack the conceptualisation of the Covid-19 pandemic by the epidemiologist Robert Wallace, before finally concluding with the contrasts of the two schools in the light of dialectical biology.

In memory of Judith Masters and Fabien Génin.

In memory of Judith Masters and Fabien Génin.

Forensic genetics through the lens of Lewontin: population structure, ancestry and race.

In his famous 1972 paper, Richard Lewontin used ‘classical’ protein-based markers to show that greater than 85% of human genetic diversity was contained within, rather than between, populations. At that time, these same markers also formed the basis of forensic technology aiming to identify individuals. This review describes the evolution of forensic genetic methods into DNA profiling, and how the field has accounted for the apportionment of genetic diversity in considering the weight of forensic evidence. When investigative databases fail to provide a match to a crime-scene profile, specific markers can be used to seek intelligence about a suspect: these include inferences on population of origin (biogeographic ancestry) and externally visible characteristics, chiefly pigmentation of skin, hair and eyes. In this endeavour, ancestry and phenotypic variation are closely entangled. The markers used show patterns of inter- and intrapopulation diversity that are very atypical compared to the genome as a whole, and reinforce an apparent link between ancestry and racial divergence that is not systematically present otherwise. Despite the legacy of Lewontin's result, therefore, in a major area in which genetics coincides with issues of public interest, methods tend to exaggerate human differences and could thereby contribute to the reification of biological race.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity’.

The apportionment of citations: a scientometric analysis of Lewontin 1972.

‘The apportionment of human diversity’ (1972) is the most highly cited research article published by geneticist Richard Lewontin in his career. This study's primary result—that most genetic diversity in humans can be accounted for by within-population differences, not between-population differences—along with Lewontin's outspoken, politically charged interpretations thereof, has become foundational to the scientific and cultural discourse pertaining to human genetic variation. The article has an unusual bibliometric trajectory in that it is much more salient in the bibliographic record today compared to the first 20 years after its publication. Here, we highlight four factors that may have played a role in shaping the paper's fame: (i) citations in influential publications across several disciplines; (ii) Lewontin's own popular books and media appearances; (iii) the renaissance of population genetics research of the early 1990s; and (iv) the serendipitous collision of scientific progress, influential books and papers, and heated controversies around the year 1994. We conclude with an analysis of Twitter data to characterize the communities and conversations that continue to keep this study at the centre of discussions about race and genetics, prompting new challenges for scientists who have inherited Lewontin's legacy.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity’.

The Apportionment of Pharmacogenomic Variation: Race, Ethnicity, and Adverse Drug Reactions.

Fifty years ago, Richard Lewontin found that the vast majority of human genetic variation falls within (~85%) rather than between (~15%) racial groups. This result has been replicated numerous times since and is widely taken to support the notion that genetic differences between racial groups are trivial and thus irrelevant for clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to consider how the apportionment of pharmacogenomic variation within and between racial and ethnic groups relates to risk disparities for adverse drug reactions. We confirmed that the majority of pharmacogenomic variation falls within (97.3%) rather than between (2.78%) the three largest racial and ethnic groups in the United States: Black, Hispanic, and White. Nevertheless, pharmacogenomic variants showing far greater within than between-group variation can have high predictive value for adverse drug reactions, particularly for minority racial and ethnic groups. We predicted excess adverse drug reactions for minority Black and Hispanic groups, compared to the majority White group, and considered these results in light of the apportionment of genetic variation within and between groups. For 85% within and 15% between group variation, there are 700 excess adverse drug reactions per 1,000 patients predicted for a recessive effect model and 300 for a dominant model. We found high numbers of predicted Black and Hispanic excess adverse drug reactions for widely prescribed platinum chemotherapy compounds, such as cisplatin and oxaliplatin, as well as controlled narcotics, including fentanyl and tramadol. Our results indicate that race and ethnicity, while imprecise proxies for genetic diversity, correlate with patterns of pharmacogenomic variation in a way that is clearly relevant to medical treatment decisions. The effects of this variation is particularly pronounced for Black and Hispanic minority groups, owing to genetic differences from the majority White group. Treatment decisions that are made based on (assumed) White pharmacogenomic variant frequencies can be harmful for minority groups. Ignoring clinically relevant genetic differences among racial and ethnic groups, however well-intentioned, will exacerbate rather than ameliorate health disparities.

Thinking as an Engelsian

In this essay, I address the question of how Marxism influences our thought and action as radical intellectuals by focusing on Friedrich Engels’ work, Dialectics of Nature, the way it has been taken up in critical environmental studies and how Engels’ thinking has influenced me. In later life, Engels made important contributions on topics that are distinct from Marx's economic work. He attempted to apply dialectical methods to the “natural sciences” and he also used his knowledge of anthropology to produce a study of the historical origins of private property and women's oppression. In both cases he has been accused of adopting a positivist approach that lacks the emphasis on human agency found in Marx. Here, I challenge this view by showing how Engels’ work has been of use to practicing scientists – particularly to Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin in their book The Dialectical Biologist. I further argue that this understanding of dialectics is fully commensurable and actually advances an approach to Marxism that is based on human self-emancipation. As an undergraduate biology student these scientists inspired me with their approach to their subject as well as their activism. The essay concludes with some brief thoughts on the importance and limitations of adopting a Marxist method when considering socio-environmental change.

Should Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Be Adjusted for Race?

Should Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Be Adjusted for Race?

A Message to Our Readers

Previous articleNext article FreeA Message to Our ReadersPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreWe are proud to announce that Dr. Daniel E. Dykhuizen has been promoted to Editor Emeritus of The Quarterly Review of Biology, effective 1 September 2021. With Dr. Dykhuizen’s designation as Editor Emeritus, Dr. Liliana M. Dávalos will assume the responsibilities of Editor-in-Chief, joined with James D. Thomson, Gregory A. Wray, and John J. Wiens as Editors.Dr. Dykhuizen has been associated with the QRB since 1992, first as a Book Review Consultant (1992–2002), second as an Editor (2002–2005 and 2007–2010), and then as Editor-in-Chief (2010–2021).Dr. Dykhuizen is an expert in population genetics, having received a Ph.D. under the mentorship of Professor Richard Lewontin from the University of Chicago in 1970. He joined the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, now Stony Brook University, in 1987. He has served as Editor of Genetica, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, and Journal of Bacteriology, and was on the editorial board of Infection, Genetics and Evolution, and PLOS Pathogens. He has also served on numerous grant panels. Dr. Dykhuizen is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Academy of Microbiology. In 2009, the State University of New York Board of Trustees appointed Dr. Dykhuizen to the rank of Distinguished Professor. He was also the winner of the Award for Faculty Mentoring, presented by the University President in 2011. A symposium entitled “Experimental Evolution and DNA” was held in honor of Dr. Dykhuizen’s professional scientific achievements in 2012.It gives us great pleasure to thank Dr. Dykhuizen for his long service to The Quarterly Review of Biology. We wish him health and happiness in his future endeavors.The Editors and Staff of The Quarterly Review of Biology Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Quarterly Review of Biology Volume 96, Number 3September 2021 Published in association with Stony Brook University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/716164 Views: 235 © 2021 The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Richard Lewontin and the “complications of linkage”

During the 1960s and 1970s population geneticists pushed beyond models of single genes to grapple with the effect on evolution of multiple genes associated by linkage. The resulting models of multiple interacting loci suggested that blocks of genes, maybe even entire chromosomes or the genome itself, should be treated as a unit. In this context, Richard Lewontin wrote his famous 1974 book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, which concludes with an argument for considering the entire genome as the unit of selection as a result of linkage. Why did Lewontin and others devote so much intellectual energy to the “complications of linkage” in the 1960s and 1970s? We argue that this attention to linkage should be understood in the context of research on chromosomal inversions and co-adapted gene complexes that occupied mid-century evolutionary genetics. For Lewontin, the complications of linkage were an extension of this chromosomal focus expressed in the new language of models for linkage disequilibrium.

Richard Lewontin (1929–2021): Evolutionary Biology’s Great Disrupter

Richard Lewontin would have laughed out loud if someone had referred to him as a postmodernist. But his role in late twentieth-early twenty-first century evolutionary biology was precisely that: di...

A Brief (Hi)Story of Just-So Stories in Evolutionary Science

In this essay, I examine the usage of the term “just-so story.” I attempt to show that just-so storytelling can be seen as an epistemic concept that, in various ways, tackles the epistemological and methodological problems relating to evolutionary explanations qua historical/narrative explanations. I identify two main, yet mutually exclusive, strategies of employing the concept of a just-so story: a negative strategy and a positive strategy. Subsequently, I argue that these strategies do not satisfactorily capture the core of the “original” meaning advanced by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin at the end of the 1970s. I revisit the foundation(s) of their anti-adaptationist critique in order to reframe it as a critique of distinctive methodological manners and epistemic maxims related to historical inquiry. Last but not least, I suggest that contemporary evolutionary thinkers have two conceptually different options: they can either adhere to the “original” meaning of the term “just-so story” or accept that “just-so story” is a term equivalent to “implausible narrative explanation.”

Tough Luck

“Tough luck” were the final words of Richard Lewontin’s paper “The Evolution of Cognition,” reflecting his view that human cognitive function would never be atomized in a genetic context.

Material ecocriticism, genes, and the phobia/philia spectrum

Some materials may have more agency than we might imagine or wish. This was the radical proposal of E.O. Wilson more than three decades ago in Biophilia (1984). Evolutionary biologists have long speculated about the genetic roots of both our affinity with and our acrimony to nature, and ecocritics have been quick to fix on biophilia as a tenet of environmental salvation. The obverse side has won less favor. But the cheerful picture of a world run by biophilic impulses is as fanciful and inaccurate as utopic visions of a world without anger or evil. Irrational fears of snakes and darkness, for starters, are evolution-based ecophobia at play. I will review in this article what sorts of attempts ecocritics have made to reconcile our material animality and genetic inheritance with the production of literature. Such work has been described by Judith Heerwagen and Gordon H. Orians as “both futile and ideologically dangerous,” and sometimes with good reason (which I will get into in detail in the article). One of the things that quickly becomes apparent is that without verifiable data, virtually every ecocritical reading or theory we do amounts to little more than what Richard Lewontin calls “an exercise in plausible story telling rather than a science of testable hypotheses.” One of the ways to avoid this without becoming a mouthpiece for the sciences is to recognize that behavioral traits, though often shared, are contextual and individual, meaning that any kind of empirical or systemic analysis must also be case-by-case and not reducible to the kind of templates that are, perhaps, more pleasing to literary critics. Maybe we can plop deconstruction or new historicism down on any old text, but material ecocriticism of the sort I am proposing here is a much more painstaking endeavor. With a keen eye trained on the dangers of “literary Darwinism” (and all that it both entails and promises), I will argue that studying the genetic roots of ecophobia offers to explain (consonant with evolutionary psychology) how adaptive behaviors to a material world in which we no longer live function. This work is crucial if we are to understand how we got into our current environmental crisis, why we seem unable to get out of it, and why biophilic theorizing alone hasn’t answered and never will answer these questions.

Complexity, Dynamism, and Agency: How Can Dialectical Biology Inform Geography?

AbstractDialectical approaches, variously interpreted, have been advocated for by geographers for several decades. At the same time, critical environmental geography has recently become dominated by vital materialist strands of thought, the advocates of which have sometimes framed their own work in opposition to dialectics. Critics perceive two major problems with a dialectical framework; that it cements a nature–society dualism and that it insufficiently accounts for the agency or vitality of non‐human life. This paper seeks to address these criticisms by engaging with work by biologists who have been influenced by dialectical ideas. I outline two examples, Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins’ understanding of the way organism and environment mutually construct each other and research by Ivette Perfecto and John Vandermeer that offers a non‐dualist approach to wildlife conservation in agricultural ecosystems. The article discusses some of the ways in which these understandings might inform contemporary debates in political ecology.