Press Release 14-120
How evolutionary principles could help save our world
The age of the Anthropocene–the scientific name given to our current geologic age–is dominated by human impacts on our environment. A warming climate. Increased resistance of pathogens and pests. A swelling population. Coping with these modern global challenges requires application of what one might call a more-ancient principle: evolution.
That’s the recommendation of a diverse group of researchers, in a paper published today in the online version of the journal Science. A majority of the nine authors on the paper have received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
“Evolution isn’t just about the past anymore, it’s about the present and the future,” said Scott Carroll, an evolutionary ecologist at University of California-Davis and one of the paper’s authors. Addressing societal challenges–food security, emerging diseases, biodiversity loss–in a sustainable way is “going to require evolutionary thinking.”
The paper reviews current uses of evolutionary biology and recommends specific ways the field can contribute to the international sustainable development goals (SDGs), now in development by the United Nations.
Evolutionary biology has “tremendous potential” to solve many of the issues highlighted in the SDGs, said Peter Søgaard Jørgensen, another Science author from the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate. The field accounts for how pests may adapt rapidly to our interventions and how vulnerable species struggle to adapt to global change. The authors even chose this release date to coincide with the upcoming meeting of the UN General Assembly, which starts September 24.
Their recommendations include gene therapies to treat disease, choosing drought-and-flood-resistant crop varieties and altering conservation strategies to protect land with high levels of genetic diversity.
“Many human-engineered solutions to societal problems have turned out to have a relatively short useful life because evolution finds ways around them,” said George Gilchrist, program officer in NSF’s Division of Environmental Biology, which funded many of the Science authors. “Carroll and colleagues propose turning the tables and using evolutionary processes to develop more robust and dynamic solutions.”
Applied evolutionary biology just recently made the leap from an academic discipline to a more-practical one, spurred by an effort within the community to better synthesize and share research insights. And–above all–increasing environmental pressures.
“The fact that we’re changing the world means that evolutionary processes are going to be affected,” said Thomas Smith, of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and another Science author. The question is, according to Smith: Do we want to be engaged in this change, or not?
The paper also serves as a platform for establishing a cross-disciplinary field of applied evolutionary biology, Carroll said, and a way to promote the field as a path to sustainable development solutions.
“Evolutionary biology touches on many elements of the life sciences, from medicine to conservation biology to agriculture,” said Smith. “And unfortunately, there hasn’t been an effort to unify across these fields.”
This disconnect exists despite the use of evolutionary tactics in many disciplines: treating HIV with a cocktail of drugs, for example, to slow pathogen resistance. And the effects of evolution already swirl in the public consciousness–and spark debate. Think of the arguments for and against genetically modified crops, or warnings about the increasing price of combating drug resistance (which costs more than $20 billion in the U.S. each year, according to the nonprofit Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics).
Seldom are these issues described in an evolutionary context, said Smith. “We’re missing an opportunity to educate the public about the importance of evolutionary principles in our daily lives.”
In conservation, evolutionary approaches are often disregarded because of the belief that evolution is beyond our ability to manage and too slow to be useful, according to a paper Smith co-authored in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics (AREES).
That article, recently published online, also tackles applied evolution. It was co-authored by Carroll, University of Maine Biologist Michael Kinnison, Sharon Strauss–of the Department of Evolution and Ecology at University of California-Davis–and Trevon Fuller of UCLA’s Tropical Research Institute. All are NSF-funded. Kinnison and Strauss are also co-authors on the Science paper.
Yet contemporary evolution–what scientists are observing now–happens on timescales of months to a few hundred years, and can influence conservation management outcomes, according to the AREES paper.
Considering the evolutionary potential and constraints of species is also essential to combat “evolutionary mismatch.” This means the environment a species exists in, and the one it has evolved to exist in, no longer match.
Such disharmony can be “dire and costly,” the authors write in Science, citing the increasingly sedentary lifestyles–and processed food diets–of modern humans. These lifestyles are linked with increasing rates of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disorders. Restoring our health requires greater physical activity and less refined carbohydrates: “Diets and activity levels closer to those of the past, to which we are better adapted,” the Science paper said.
Implementing applied evolutionary principles often requires very careful thinking about social incentives, said Jørgensen. Public vaccination programs, for example, and pest control in crops often create tension between individual and public good.
Applied evolution, therefore, requires input from biologists, doctors, agriculturalists: “We’re making a call for policy makers, decision-makers at all levels,” to be involved, Jørgensen said.
Evolutionary biologists don’t have all the answers, said Smith. And using applied evolution is not without risk. But we have reached a point “where we need to take risks in many cases,” he said. “We can’t just sit back and be overly conservative, or we’re going to lose the game.”
-NSF-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You do know this is sh-t that makes me go HUMMMMMMMMM ;>)
I know, meme explative CAPS emoticon, right?
Evolve to live in a more comfortable climate? No problemo
that’s odd…..I haven’t felt the urge for the past two decades
to whom do I send my request for funding???
Oh, I study various animal droppings (and humans are included)
On the surface of it, I like it. This is a much less economically and politically intrusive approach to dealing with the precautionary principle. If we warm or don’t warm, we are applying adaptive tools that likely will lead to better medicine, more productive agriculture and the like. It permits us to continue to use the most economical energy and, indeed, having cheap energy will assist the whole adaptive (if and when necessary) process. Just keep its management away from the UN and the NGOs who want to use stuff for elitist-run world government. They don’t want to have this because it may support policies that help Africans to get cheap energy and real economic development, too.
I see no thought put in on adapting to colder temperature…which of course is a much bigger challenge . I like the piece for its suggestion that we adapt however….that is what we do best.
Brought to you by the Obama administration.
“Never let a crisis go to waste.”
Good thing there aren’t any dinosaurs around anymore to ruin our picnics!
Our biology science is just as important as your “climate science.”
Our important biology science deserves to have money flung at us. We will do important stuff with the billions you send us. We will start with a big meeting in Hawaii, or Bali, or ………
…the Galapagos?
The funny part being that many biologists have only a vague idea of how Natural Selection actually works….check out Greg Cochran’s site West hunter for examples.
“This means the environment a species exists in, and the one it has evolved to exist in, no longer match.”
—
Except the environment a species exists in has never been static. Climate has changed in the past and it will change in the future. That’s where natural variability comes in. Many died from the plague, small pox, or the flu, but not everyone. That’s because some had immunity due to natural variation and survivors passed it on to their offspring. A similar thing happens to species when the climate changes. A few weak species may die off completely, but their niche will be filled in by others. Most species can adapt to small changes in the climate, or they wouldn’t still be around. The worse thing that could happen is for evolutionary biologists to start tinkering with genes to prepare people or other species for warming and have the climate cool instead.
The biggest really stupid assumption made by most who get into the future-predicting business is that they assume “business as usual” unless humans decide to get involved and do something , like alter the means of producing power. But “business as usual” has never existed for any length of time, certainly not lately, what with the advancements in technology , etc. Competition also precludes a static technology. Anyone who thinks we will still be building gas powered cars far into the future simply doesn’t understand auto technology , which greatly favors the electrically driven vehicle because of reliability, simplicity, lower fuel costs – it’ll happened whenever electrical storage becomes practical. This has already occurred in the golf cart world, where formerly most were gas powered. Only electric golf carts are now being used , or built.
The same will be true of power generation.
In regards to: “Think of the arguments …. or warnings about the increasing price of combating drug resistance (which costs more than $20 billion in the U.S. each year, according to the nonprofit Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics).”
I have been researching this issue — antibiotic use in agriculture and its role in MDR (multiple drug resistant) infections in humans — for the last couple of weeks, corresponding to two researchers who have published this year on the issue — one of them publishing a seminal review of the topic. Neither has found or knows of any “smoking gun” case of antibiotic resistant illness being transmitted to humans from farm animals. In humans, it is generally believed that ~ 100% of MDR illnesses have their origins in hospital settings. There is evidence, however, that humans employed by the UK National Health Service have infected their household pets with MRSA — apparently bring the infection home from UK hospitals.
Looks like the NSF and “evolutionary ecologists” with the UN Bundestag are goose stepping toward a 1936 solution.
And no mention of nuclear power in our future?
“We’re missing an opportunity to educate the public about the importance of evolutionary principles in our daily lives.”
So start with “Evolutionary Political Science”. Socialism suffocates innovation. And if you think Global Warming is such a nightmare, then why cut off your ability to invent new ways to adapt and overcome?
Oh I forgot. Your “sciences” are about promoting Socialism, not Science.
Just another gravy train. Being tied to the UN “sustainability” agenda makes it no different than the climate agenda. Here, however, are endless opportunities to scare the sheeple – genetics, disease, food and environment. It already is “dire” and we have to act soon. Look out- if the climate scare dies……
Sheeple?! Cross-breeding humans and sheep would be baaaaaad. But it would be good for a coming ice age.
Climate changes will happen, evolutionary changes will happen, without ANY intervention from yet another plethora of fat cat funding.
‘Evolution isn’t just about the past anymore.’
I wasn’t aware that evolution ever stopped?
My thoughts exactly. Unless Darwin said “let there be no more evolution”.
And reportedly out of the mouth of an “evolutionary ecologist.” Arrgh.
Interesting … Recommending a GMO strategy to cope with climate change. This will not play well with the CAGW crowd who is also generally anti-GMO. Will be interesting to see how the greens deal with this internal conflict of philosophy
The “internal conflict of philosophy” is confusing GMO ( engineering ) with evolution.
Man attempting to play God is not “evolution”.
Developing GMO’s equals playing God? Please supply the link for this.
From this idea, I suppose that human race, that lives in the heat of equatorial Africa and the cold of the Arctic Circle, is not evolved enough.
Yeah, I guess so, but…
We need to make sure it stays on track.
That all that proper evolutionizing is happin’ on schedule.
Yeah, that’s the what we’re sayin’, yeah.
Now did you want that baby born with gills or without?
“The age of the Anthropocene–the scientific name given to our current geologic age”
Lie, that is the non-scientific name invented by propagandists. It has not been adopted as the “scientific name” for anything.
And the head of NSF is unaware of what is scientific and what is politics and propaganda? Time for him to step down in favour of someone who follows and understands science.
Damn, you mean I missed the Holocene altogether?
“Many human-engineered solutions to societal problems have turned out to have a relatively short useful life because evolution finds ways around them”. Is this a reference to fighting global warming after it has ended?
Ever since Charles Darwin’s book, “The origin of the species” evolution has been used to justify the social bias de jour, from white supremacy to male supremacy, to evolution of thought, evolution of speech, evolution of social behavior. The argument is: “There is no god, therefore all has congealed by chance, we are all animals anyway.” ……. Continued musings at
http://lenbilen.com/2014/05/16/the-evolution-of-evolution-an-elusive-quest-for-truth/
Thanks, Len – I’m totally in your corner!
The nice thing about evolutionary logic is that it’s all hypothesis and speculation. You can always some pseudo-logical argument that arrives at the desired result.
eg the Wet Monkey hypothesis, humans have belly fat because we spent millennia splashing about in waist high water during our “aquatic” phase.
Probably when our dicks shrivelled because, being out of sight, there was no evolutionary driver to favour well endowed males.
The development of gene manipulation has empowered us to “manage” evolution. The game has changed. Our descendents will include GMO babies.
“managed evolution” is not evolution.
Evolving brains lead to evolving ideas.
Since ancient times, doctors have claimed to have cures for all human ailments. As early as 1750 BC, the Law Code of Hammurabi established some laws for doctors who performed cures, which even included various types of surgery. The doctor was free to practice, and the patients were free to go to doctors, but should the doctor destroy, deform, or kill the patient, then the doctor would suffer the same injury**. This is a variation on “an eye for an eye,” as the saying goes. In the Law of Moses, c. 1450 BC, any one who tried to make a false accusation against another person and was found to be lying, would suffer the exact results he intended to bring upon his neighbor through false witness. That is the “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” law. Let us apply Law to genetic operations.
These geneticists who claim to be able to alter or improve the human form are precisely like any other doctor claiming to have a cure. Before the eyes of the Law, any deleterious effects of their so- called “genetic managements” will be as if a surgeon operated and maimed a patient. And I do believe the intent of “applied evolutionary biology” is to maim and/or eliminate people.
Example: genetically modified humans who are lactose and meat intolerant. This is maiming the human form.
Example: destroying the reproductive capacity of people, whether chemically or surgically. This is maiming the human form.
Don’t get involved with this Transhumanist movement. It is no different than removing body parts or faces.
When that happens, I promise I won’t say anything.
Perfect example of Post-normal science, which is characterized by “‘diversity of opinion’ and impacting‘all public programs and scientific conclusions, [which] must be reflective of input from a variety of legitimate, diverse and thoughtful perspectives.’” http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/30/2860925/denrs-new-mission-takes-wrong.html
Garbage!
NSF says the best way to deal with a warming climate is to evolve with it.
———————–
I am not sure if NFS meant a warming climate or simply climate change but anyway from the idea I get in this article here, is a general claim of evolving with it, the climate so to speak.
From what I understand if I understood the point made, is that while talking about evolving and evolution it seems like the point is totally lost and deluted.
As far as I know, which may not be much, evolving and evolution goes through a set of steps, and an important one is a mutation. The way I see it the mutation is a stage where the applying of given skills and proceses through time and the needd to adapt to the environment and its natural condition leads to a mutation which can be seen as the acquiring of a new attribute and a new sets of skills and processes avaliable with the new attribute for testing.
A mutation either fails or succeedes, depending in the ability to fully employ the new set of skills or processes offered by the new attribute acquiried. Failure means less chance of bettering the survival and prosperity, and more exposure to danger from a changing and evolving environment.
Seen from this angle as far as evolution and climate change concerned, the main subject is and should be the evolution and the evolving of our civilization.
From my angle of view it seems like our civilization already in a mutation period (step).
The old skills and processes employed in full and for a considerable time did brink about the condition of a new attribute acquiried, the attribute of influencing-effecting climate through the processes of increasing the CO2 emissions.
As the attribute means the efficient influence-effect of the climate in harmony with its natural condition, which means also that an efficient process of decreasing of CO2 will be need it at some given time.
A full acquiring of such an attribute requiries the full ability and efficiency to flexibly adapt our CO2 emissions to the climate process and condition by increasing and decreasing that ammount as requiried.
The new set of skills and processes offered seem to be related more with the ability to cut the CO2 emissions while still allowing progress and evolving of our civilization.
While at this stage there seems to be a lot of skills, processes, inovations in technology or otherwise, the point is that the best ones to choose from that long list will be the only very efficient ones that offer the ability too efficiently reduce CO2 emissions. Also a very efficient and correct way to make these choices may be a requirment too.
That what it seems to me the point while evolution, adaption and climate change put together in a context.
Sure, not very likable, as it still points at the anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the angle of been a problem if not able to deal with appropriately and efficiently.
The ” to Evolve with it” still means accepting change and the requiried adaptions to it. Generally evolution is not just a fancy and a relaxing walk in the park…..especially while a civilization considered.
Cheers
.
“NSF says the best way to deal with a warming climate is to evolve with it”
So, wonder what would be the best way to deal with a cooling climate?
Send funding.
the best way to deal with a warming climate is to wait until you find one, then deal with it. That is not a actual problem for humanity at this point in time.
War, disease, world govt, loss of sovereignty, financial collapse, more relevant in the present.
I think I’ll just hold ever more tightly onto my wallet, and wait for the winds to subside.
Unfortunately the money in your wallet sublimates to gov’t income, no matter how hard you try to freeze it.
Who said anything about “money”.
Sorry, I thought you did.