Synthetic science promises an unparalleled ability to find new meaning in old data, extant results, or previously unconnected methods and concepts, but pursuing synthesis can be a difficult and risky endeavor. Our experience as biologists, informaticians, and educators at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center has affirmed that synthesis can yield major insights, but also revealed that technological hurdles, prevailing academic culture, and general confusion about the nature of synthesis can hamper its progress. By presenting our view of what synthesis is, why it will continue to drive progress in evolutionary biology, and how to remove barriers to its progress, we provide a map to a future in which all scientists can engage productively in synthetic research. G.G. Simpson (1944) As articulated eloquently by Simpson more than 60-years ago, any attempt to elucidate the history and nature of life from a grand perspective must link clues from different scientific fields and disparate geographic, temporal, and physical scales. ple, Darwin's (1859) fundamental insights came from the union of Malthusian population dynamics, careful observation of artificial selection and natural variation, Smith's economic principles, and geological evidence of the immense age of the Earth. Similarly, the 20th century transformation of biology and the unification of microevolution and macroevolution during the Modern Synthesis resulted from discourse and collaboration between researchers working on heritability, paleontology, development, speciation, Mendelian genetics, natural selection, and systematics (Fisher

The 1605 bp intron 4 of the Euglena gracilis chloroplast psbC gene was characterized as a group III twintron composed of an internal 1503 nt group III intron with an open reading frame of 1374 nt (ycf13, 458 amino acids), and an external group III intron of 102 nt. Twintron excision proceeds by a sequential splicing pathway. The splicing of the internal and external group III introns occurs via lariat intermediates. Branch sites were mapped by primer extension RNA sequencing. The unpaired adenosines in domains VI of the internal and external introns are covalently linked to the 5' nucleotide of the intron via 2'-5' phosphodiester bonds. This bond is susceptible to hydrolysis by the debranching activity of the HeLa nuclear S100 fraction. The internal intron and presumptive ycf13 mRNA accumulates primarily as a linear RNA, although a lariat precursor can also be detected. The ycf13 gene encodes a maturase-like protein that may be involved in group III intron metabolism.

The interface between evolutionary biology and the biomedical sciences promises to advance understanding of the origins of genetic and infectious diseases in humans, potentially leading to improved medical diagnostics, therapies, and public health practices. The biomedical sciences also provide unparalleled examples for evolutionary biologists to explore. However, gaps persist between evolution and medicine, for historical reasons and because they are often perceived as having disparate goals.Evolutionary biologists have a role in building a bridge between the disciplines by presenting evolutionary biology in the context of human health and medical practice to undergraduates, including premedical and preprofessional students. We suggest that students will find medical examples of evolution engaging. By making the connections between evolution and medicine clear at the undergraduate level, the stage is set for future health providers and biomedical scientists to work productively in this

No abstract

Modern evolutionary research has much to contribute to medical research and health care practices. Conversely, evolutionary biologists are tapping into the rapidly expanding databases of medical genomic information to further their research. These two fields, which have historically functioned in almost complete isolation, are finding mutual benefit in the exchange of information. The long-term benefits of this synthesis of two major areas of research include improved health care. Recently, efforts to catalyze this relationship have brought together evolutionary biologists, medical practitioners, anthropologists, and ethicists to lay the groundwork for further collaboration and exploration. The range of overlap is surprisingly broad and potentially invaluable.Evolution has not traditionally been considered to be an important aspect of medicine, and medical practitioners and researchers have not traditionally approached their work from the perspective offered by evolutionary biology. Medical practice tends to focus on the immediate, or proximate, causes of disease, including genetics and lifestyle, to identify a potential treatment. An evolutionary viewpoint pushes the focus out farther to look at long-term ecological relationships, including symbiotic bacteria, parasites and pathogens, historical lifestyles, and the genetics of populations. Conversely, evolutionary biologists have not traditionally paid much attention to the medical implications or applications of their findings, with a few exceptions such as the study of emerging infectious diseases. Other evolutionary studies have seemed far removed from contemporary human health issues.Recently, however, these traditions have been giving way to a new approach, as researchers and medical practitioners discover connections based on evolutionary biology that are leading them to new conclusions about their respective fields. Evolution is providing clues about puzzling medical results, and studies of human health are giving us new information about the rate and driving forces of evolution. Initiatives such as the Human Genome Project and the Haplotype Map have provided new tools for studying evolution and human health.