The application of game theory to evolutionary problems is so commonplace today, that few stop to consider how it all began. John Maynard Smith and George R. Price's 1973 Nature article, "The Logic of Animal Conflict," is often referred to as the first description in the literature of the concept of an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS), but what was the "behind the scenes" of the writing of that seminal paper? This article tracks the little known story of the curious American polymath, George Price. As will be shown, it was an earlier paper, the lost "Antlers, Intraspecific Combat, and Altruism," sent by Price to Nature in August 1968 (Unpublished), and refereed by Maynard Smith, which instigated the birth of the first ESS. Recently, the "Antlers" paper has been re-discovered by the author, shedding new light, together with letters and journals from the personal papers of George Price and John Maynard Smith, on their historical paper.
In 1869, the young Swiss biochemist Friedrich Miescher discovered the molecule we now refer to as DNA, developing techniques for its extraction. In this paper we explain why his name is all but forgotten, and his role in the history of genetics is mostly overlooked. We focus on the role of national rivalries and disciplinary turf wars in shaping historical memory, and on how the story we tell shapes our understanding of the science. We highlight that Miescher could just as correctly be portrayed as the person who understood the chemical nature of chromatin (before the term existed), and the first to suggest how stereochemistry might serve as the basis for the transmission of hereditary variation.
The Price equation was a piece of abstract mathematics. What kind of a connection could it possibly have had to George Price's personal life and biography? Here, I will argue that the initial impetus for Price's foray into mathematical population genetics stemmed from a preoccupation with the origins of family, one that was born following a divorce from his wife and the abandonment of their two young girls. What is special about the Price equation is the way in which it associates statistically between two groups, a ‘mother’ and ‘daughter’ population. The association need not mean genetic relatedness in the narrow sense of direct descent, and it allows us to see selection working at different levels simultaneously, a fact that was not lost on William Hamilton. Hamilton was one of the few friends who desperately tried to save Price from falling into the abyss of depression and homelessness in the period following the publication of ‘Selection and covariance’ (Price 1928
Nature
227
, 520–521 (
doi:10.1038/227520a0
)). Viewed in this light, the Price equation assumes new meaning.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Fifty years of the Price equation’.
Much of modern moral philosophy argued that there are is's in this world, and there are oughts, but that the two are entirely independent of one another. What this meant was that morality had nothing to do with man's biological nature, and could not be derived from it. Any such attempt was considered to be a categorical mistake, and plain foolish. Most philosophers still believe this, but a growing group of neo-naturalist thinkers are now challenging their assumptions. Here I consider the latest work of one of them, Patricia Churchland, on what neurobiology teaches us about morality, and ask whether her challenge means that the naturalistic fallacy, as it is known, should be laid to rest. I argue that while there may be no such thing as a human trait divorced from human biology, this does not necessarily mean that our natures produce constraints that are relevant to specific moral dilemmas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.