1. Comment #197193 by Lil_Xunzian on June 21, 2008 at 10:17 am

Brilliant!

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

2. Comment #197196 by Elles on June 21, 2008 at 10:19 am

"A new discovery by a scientist from The University of Western Ontario provides conclusive evidence which supports decades-old evolutionary doctrines long accepted as fact. "

Ok, is it just me or does that sentence make this whole article... not news? I'm glad they found something of interest, I suppose.

Other Comments by Elles

3. Comment #197209 by AoClay on June 21, 2008 at 11:10 am

Aside from the word doctrine (*shudder*), I agree with Lil_Xunzian. Aside from a little bit of confusion (it seems, anyways) over the way Dawkins uses selfish, it's at least interesting.

Other Comments by AoClay

4. Comment #197211 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 11:17 am

Now here is an article that could and should be a bit longer.

This is the first proven example of a selfish gene? I'm suprised.

Richard: Would you care to comment on this?

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #197213 by LochRaven on June 21, 2008 at 11:24 am

Hmm...only one sentence devoted to anything new.

"Working with Peter Oxley of the University of Sydney in Australia, Western biology professor Graham Thompson has, for the first time-ever, isolated a region on the honey bee genome that houses this 'selfish' gene in female workers bees."

I would like to hear more details on this statement alone. I'm surprised not more was mentioned about what is really the meat of the story.

Other Comments by LochRaven

6. Comment #197221 by decius on June 21, 2008 at 11:49 am

It was known all along, but still...

BRAVO Richard!

Other Comments by decius

7. Comment #197222 by Lil_Xunzian on June 21, 2008 at 11:50 am

I'm happy to see this! I've been thinking of writing a paper for an upcoming conference on how selfish gene theory can enrich our understanding of classical moral philosophy. Now I have one more reason to.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

8. Comment #197223 by CrimsonRick on June 21, 2008 at 11:51 am

I agree that the article is too short and doesn't go into a lot of things they should.

At the very least they should provide a quotable statement along the lines of this showing that self-sacrifice and altruism can be a genetic trait that can be passed down.

Provides another argument against the "without God there is no reason to be altruistic" point.

Other Comments by CrimsonRick

9. Comment #197226 by nother person on June 21, 2008 at 11:57 am

I don't understand the kudos this article is receiving. Finding one particular gene that is 'the' selfish gene doesn't vindicate Richard's book. It implies all the other genes are something else. Utter rubbish.

Other Comments by nother person

10. Comment #197227 by bleonard1401 on June 21, 2008 at 11:58 am

This article IS too short. Does anybody know where I might find the scientific journal on this. I'm sure there must be one. If I find it before anyone reply's, I'll try to post the website.

Other Comments by bleonard1401

11. Comment #197232 by SilentMike on June 21, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I wouldn't mind getting a more detailed explanation. What exactly did they find and how does it intergrate with the selfish gene theory.

Other Comments by SilentMike

12. Comment #197233 by rod-the-farmer on June 21, 2008 at 12:14 pm

I have contacted UWO to ask for more details. Stay tuned. Movie at 11.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

13. Comment #197238 by Quine on June 21, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Rod, I will be interested in what you find out. The piece sounds like the writer did not really understand what was discovered.


[EDIT: OOPS!! word "not" got left out of original post.]

Other Comments by Quine

14. Comment #197241 by seals on June 21, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Someone has posted on the Evolution & Natural selection forum that the research will be in the July issue of Genetics.

Other Comments by seals

15. Comment #197246 by jaytee_555 on June 21, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Should this gene not be called the 'unselfish gene', since it apparently prevents the sterile worker females from 'selfishly' reproducing competing offspring? It seems to me that this would make more sense, because it appears this gene is an 'exception', and the other genes are the 'selfish' ones. I'm probably missing something here, but the article is rather short on detail.

Like others, I do hope Richard posts a better explanatory comment on this article.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

16. Comment #197247 by bugaboo on June 21, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Arent selfish genes simply genetic elements that are replicated either alone or together with the genome but dont provide any advantage to the organism? Ive always thought that mobile genetic elements like transposons were regarded as selfish DNA. Introns also.
I dont understand what the "breakthrough" is here.

Come to think about it isnt ALL DNA selfish?

Other Comments by bugaboo

17. Comment #197251 by prettygoodformonkeys on June 21, 2008 at 12:56 pm

bugaboo

Come to think about it isnt ALL DNA selfish?

Exactly the point. I never liked the term, and Richard talks about it in the prefaces to the more recent reprinting. There can't be anything selfish or unselfish about a blind process - natural selection.

I may be wrong, but RD has some regrets of the word choice, and it looks like this article has misunderstood its application to this discovery.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

18. Comment #197253 by the great teapot on June 21, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Nothing including Genes is either selfish or unshellfish. Everything just does what it does.

Other Comments by the great teapot

19. Comment #197257 by Brian English on June 21, 2008 at 1:07 pm

The sad thing is, because of the common meaning of the word, this will appear to fundis as even more proof of the evilness of evolution.

Other Comments by Brian English

20. Comment #197265 by Geoff on June 21, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Like others, I want to see the published paper first, before commenting. This is just a "teaser"; no substance.

Other Comments by Geoff

21. Comment #197266 by tahustvedt on June 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

This is not the same thing as the selfish gene proposed by RD in his book though, is it?

EDIT:
I own the book in both paperback and hardcover version but haven't read it yet, I need to finish other books first. lol From what I understand from quickly looking at some pages is that the genome (replicator) selfishly uses the organism (vehicle) purely for the purpose of passing itself on. Not conciously, of course. lol

Other Comments by tahustvedt

22. Comment #197267 by Janus on June 21, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Tahustvedt is correct. What does this have to do with The Selfish Gene?

Other Comments by Janus

23. Comment #197291 by Ilovelucy on June 21, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Nothing including Genes is either selfish or unshellfish. Everything just does what it does.

I think you're referring to Dawkins' little known, more specialist "The Shellfish Gene" rather than than "The Selfish Gene" which you also obviously haven't read.

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

24. Comment #197301 by decius on June 21, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Gosh.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199291144/ref=ed_oe_h?_encoding=UTF8

Other Comments by decius

25. Comment #197307 by phil rimmer on June 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm

This little item irritated me at first. I thought the writer either hadn't got RD's original use of selfish or had thrown in a second use.

I now think he has understood it, but a looseness of phrasing scuppers other people's possible understanding.

In studying genomes, the word 'selfish' does not refer to the human-describing adjective of self-centered behavior but rather to the blind tendency of genes wanting to continue their existence into the next generation. Ironically, this 'selfish' tendency can appear anything but selfish when the gene does move ahead for selfless and even self-sacrificing reasons.

would be better as something like...

In studying genomes, the word 'selfish' does not refer to the human-describing adjective of self-centered behavior but rather to the blind tendency of ALL genes wanting to continue their existence into the next generation. Ironically, this 'selfish' tendency can manifest itself as anything but selfish when the gene precipitates behaviour in its host which we would describe as selfless or even self-sacrificing.

Also...

Because the 'selfish' gene controlling worker sterility has never been isolated by scientists, the understanding of how reproductive altruism can evolve has been entirely theoretical, until now.

Is improved a little as...

The understanding of how this reproductive "altruism" can evolve has been entirely theoretical, until now. The particular gene controlling worker sterility has just been isolated by scientists, revealing for the first time an example of a gene producing altruistic behaviour in its host.

Or some such.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

26. Comment #197319 by tahustvedt on June 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm

phil rimmer.

I agree.

Other Comments by tahustvedt

27. Comment #197325 by Faithhead on June 21, 2008 at 6:23 pm

This little item irritated me at first. I thought the writer either hadn't got RD's original use of selfish or had thrown in a second use.

I now think he has understood it, but a looseness of phrasing scuppers other people's possible understanding

I agree, this is very poorly written and thank you phil rimmer, the rephase helped.

Two points.
1. The writer uses the term selfish way too loosly. RD goes to great length in the preface to the 30th anniversary selfish gene edition to clear up the misunderstanding and misquoatations of this concept and it is articles like this which do no good to add clarity to the metaphor.
2. Perhaps being over critical but from a genetics point of view, the gene is more properly named in terms of it directly observed phenotypic effect. I.e. the gene controlling the mating type of yeast is known as mata and the HOX gene controlling the appearance and position of the eye in drosphilia is the eyless gene(cuz fly is eyless when gene is mutated). On this points should the article not read, new discovery proves 'sterile gene' exists. Not as catchy though :)

Other Comments by Faithhead

28. Comment #197327 by Count von Count on June 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Excellent news! I wonder if we will hear from Richard on this discovery.

For those above who have some trouble with the word 'selfish' as applied to genes, or the significance of this particular discovery, your questions will most liked be entirely cleared up (and your outlook on life entirely altered) after you have read 'The Selfish Gene.' The example of sterile worker insects takes a prominent place in the book, and I think you will be quite satisfied.

'The Selfish Gene' will probably be ranked among the most important books you have ever read once you finish it. It certainly is for me.

Other Comments by Count von Count

29. Comment #197337 by Aidan86 on June 21, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Doesn't this article miss the point of Richard's book? I thought the main thesis of the Selfish Gene was that natural selection occurs at the level of the gene, not that there is some specific selfish gene in our dna. This might be interesting research, but it's a different idea really, as far as I can tell.

Other Comments by Aidan86

30. Comment #197362 by Ascaphus on June 21, 2008 at 9:29 pm

That should be the standard interpretation. It would appear that the author of this article is among those who have read only the title of the book. :( It's very hard to tell from the original post exactly what is going on. My guess is that Peter Oxley and Graham Thompson are rolling their eyes and regretting the whole affair.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

31. Comment #197380 by Konradius on June 21, 2008 at 11:59 pm

To me the most damning line in this article is the last. The point of the book is that ALL genes are selfish. If they're not they get selected against and disappear.

I would have loved to get some actual understanding of the finding, but that seems to have been omitted from this article...

Oh yes, and then the remark about fundis thinking evolution is evil.

Well, yes, evolution *IS* evil! Evolution is just as evil as earthquakes, volcanoes and other natural occurrences that one usually does not personify.

Getting a child with a genetic defect is an evil occurrence, and one that we should try to prevent. However this is natural selection at work. That is, your child will be selected against!

The remedy is to understand evolution and limit its effects. And this is what we should stress. Yes evolution is evil and you're helping it if you deny that it exists!

Other Comments by Konradius

32. Comment #197384 by irate_atheist on June 22, 2008 at 12:06 am

What a load of bollocks.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

33. Comment #197387 by Stacey on June 22, 2008 at 12:25 am

I too hope Prof. Dawkins will respond and give details. I was just getting started when the whole piece ended!

Just as an aside, but still relevant to the whole concept of 'selfish' gene, it raises a specific point that should be considered when discussing and explaining things of science to the layman, especially when you consider most laymen have a long history of religious brainwashing.

I think many of the terms and descriptions may be intended as helpful but they genuinely confuse people and give the wrong idea. Consider that most laymen unfamiliar with natural selection at all, or evolution, tend to presume that evolution is a causal agent in competition with a god, so that is a communication barrier right off. Then it crops up again in natural selection when they describe events such as, *nature favored this animal's ability to stay warm and it was rewarded by having more mates, etc* which is always coming off as personification to the layman - as if nature is also a causal agent taking sides between this one and that one, on a material ego sort of basis...if not arbitrarily.

When I read The Selfish Gene, I understood the proper context without a problem but only because I'd already been introduced to things of science and gotten a feel for the "lingo" and use. Talking cold to a religionist or layman, using these sorts of terms is implying a competitor to a god, and well, they're used to their god and familiar with it, their stories make more sense, and some indifferent "cruel" female entity such as nature selecting animals arbitrarily is a losing concept in competing concepts.

While it is not technically biological, I tend to use the process of mating to conception to pregnancy to birth to infancy et death to help explain the concept of evolution, and as for the "transitional stages" those are far easier to get across when you can show a fetus as compared to a 65 year old man - they get it far easier in that sort of context. Also helpful is using the WalMart example - and how a particular shopping style has come about from the first entry into the store - learning the layout, the various items' locations, what times a checker is likely to be open, when traffic is easy for parking - that sort of layman's version and show how over time the changes have polished up a style that has succeeded, been favored over some other - and thus the other went extinct.

It's a dumbed down version but it is very helpful for those who find the whole topic so alien and remote and "out of their league" but are threatened by the idea of some comepeting entity doing what they already figure god was doing, so no need to shift.

Perhaps if we consider the religious methodology in terms of natural selection, we could reply to them that if evolution was not real or didn't exist, they'd still be stoning babies and sacrificing goats. Evolution has taken place in all religions as one form or method was replaced by a more productive one, and the old ways have gone extinct.

Genes may function for the survival of the gene, but soon as you say selfish, people automatically bristle up that the gene is *selfish* in the ego sense. Science could help this cause tremendously by working out a less threatening manner of description - something they can relate to without necessarily dumbing down.

Other Comments by Stacey

34. Comment #197404 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 1:39 am

Faithhead

On this points should the article not read, new discovery proves 'sterile gene' exists. Not as catchy though :)

You are entirely right that there is much else to complain about. Genes "wanting" to do things makes me squirm.

The skill in writing accessible science articles without introducing too many unknown terms for the lay person is not gifted to many journalists. You would have thought that Phys Org could field a better journo than this, though.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

35. Comment #197410 by stephenray on June 22, 2008 at 2:11 am

There isn't 'a' selfish gene, you journalist turkeys. They are ALL selfish. The point is that genes are only 'interested' in replicating themselves; they have 'no thought' for the survival of the planet, of the species or even - after procreation - of the individual.

What has been discovered is the 'selfish gene' in the bee genome which, unlike most selfish genes, doesn't even care about replicating itself, because it 'knows' that a copy of itself is replicating like buggery in the queen.

The reason why this is important is that impinges on the criticism that many (admittedly, those hampered with defective intellectual development) make of The Selfish Gene because they think it is about 'how genes make us selfish', when that is not the thesis which RD advanced.

Other Comments by stephenray

36. Comment #197434 by decius on June 22, 2008 at 3:30 am

Forget the article, which admittedly is garbage.

The importance of this is that Oxley was able to isolate the part of the genome which contains the gene regulating workers sterility.

This proves in practice Richard's ideas about reproductive altruism as he described it, and pretty much settles in his favour the controversy with the group selection bunch.

Those confused by the word "selfish" should actually read the book.

Other Comments by decius

37. Comment #197446 by bugaboo on June 22, 2008 at 4:05 am

36. Comment #197434 by decius

The confusion over the term selfish is perpetuated in the most unlikely places. Molecular biologists In labs everywhere and in modern textbooks often refer to selfish DNA when the DNA in question does not code for a protein or doesn't have any known function and is perceived to be simply "hitching a ride".

I must re-read the book. I read it twenty odd years ago and was the major catalyst in my career move from electronics to the life sciences. I lost my copy years ago so now off to get another.

Other Comments by bugaboo

38. Comment #197460 by decius on June 22, 2008 at 5:34 am

It's going to be interesting to see at which point David Sloan Wilson will revise his remarkably evidence-free claims on group selection, if ever. He has been long overdue.

Other Comments by decius

39. Comment #197461 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 6:02 am

Comment #197460 by decius

Sloan Wilson does not say there are no selfish genes. He claims that there are "altruistic" ones as well.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #197464 by decius on June 22, 2008 at 6:39 am

That's right, Steve, but he is an advocate for group selection, both in social insects behaviour and in his interpretation of religion.
In either case, he fails to provide satisfactory evidence to support his claims.
I may be missing something, feel free to correct me.

Here is a quote, which doesn't format well, being from pdf. I apologise.

Even though group-level adaptations can evolve in theory, the
second part of the consensus concluded that they seldom do so
in the real world, because group-level selection is almost
invariably weaker than individual-level selection. This con-
clusion was so widely accepted that group selection became a
pariah concept, taught primarily as an example of how not to
think. The theoretical justi�cation for individualism in psy-
chology seemed secure.
Nevertheless, much has happened in evolutionary biology
during the last half century (Wilson & Wilson, 2007). The �rst
part of the 1960s consensus remains valid: Adaptations at any
given level of the biological hierarchy require a process of natural selection at that level and tend to be undermined by
lower levels of selection. The second part of the consensus has
proven to be erroneous: Higher-level selection can be a sig-
ni�cant evolutionary force, one that sometimes even dominates
lower-level selection, causing the higher-level unit to become an
organism in every sense of the word. Ironically, given group
selection's previous pariah status, it is now the concept of groups
as organisms that stands on a �rm scienti�c foundation. More-
over, it is likely that human evolution represents such an evo-
lutionary transition, and this has profound implications for
psychology and all other human-related subjects.
When between-group selection dominates within-group selec-
tion, a major evolutionary transition occurs. The social group
becomes a higher-level organism and the members of the group
acquire an organ-like status. This idea was �rst proposed to
explain the evolution of eukaryotic (nucleated) cells, not by
small mutational steps from prokaryotic (bacterial) cells, but as
highly integrated symbiotic associations of bacteria. The idea
was then generalized to include other major transitions, in-
cluding the �rst cells, multicellular organisms, social insect
colonies, and even the origin of life as groups of cooperating
molecular interactions (Maynard Smith & Szathmary, 1995).
Major transitions have a number of hallmarks: First, they are
rare events in the history of life. It is not easy for between-group
selection to dominate within-group selection. All species of
eusocial insects (e.g., ants, bees, wasps, and termites), for ex-
ample, are thought to be derived from only 15 original transitions
from solitary insect species. Second, major transitions have
momentous consequences once they occur. Individuals and
uncoordinated groups are no match for the new superorganisms,
which quickly become ecologically dominant...

Other Comments by decius

41. Comment #197465 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 6:44 am

Comment #197464 by decius

My point was that no number of discoveries of selection at "lower levels", even truly "selfish" genes will disprove the idea of "higher levels" of selection. There needs to be falsifiability of the ideas of those higher levels.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #197469 by scotriani on June 22, 2008 at 7:13 am

in Unweaving The Rainbow, Dawkins extends his most misunderstood "Selfish Gene" theory as being a positive one.

Other Comments by scotriani

43. Comment #197470 by decius on June 22, 2008 at 7:15 am

I agree, but before concerning too much with falsifiability, a modicum of positive evidence should be forthcoming. Have you seen any?

Other Comments by decius

44. Comment #197472 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 7:19 am

Comment #197470 by decius

Not the slightest, really. I may be being mean, but my impression is that the idea of "group selection" gives some people a warm fuzzy feeling, a sort of "Nature loves us" idea.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #197621 by thewhitepearl on June 22, 2008 at 11:38 am

Ahhh the book that changed it all for me...

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

46. Comment #197652 by bitbutter on June 22, 2008 at 12:35 pm

It's interesting that this team is getting close to isolating the gene for worker sterility, but the references to Dawkins' The Selfish Gene seem a bit confused.

As far as I understood, the main message of TSG was that it can be useful to consider that all genes are in a sense 'out for themselves', and not that there are some selfish genes which are out there to be discovered.

Other Comments by bitbutter

47. Comment #197657 by decius on June 22, 2008 at 12:42 pm

bitbutter,

that's right. This discovery simply proves that worker sterility is the expression of a gene which favours its own "selfish" propagation through reproductive altruism, and that the latter isn't the result of group selection.

Edit- I wish Richard would weigh in and comment on the paper.

Other Comments by decius

48. Comment #197707 by jeremynel on June 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm

This article is terrible, as many of the above commenters have pointed out. I pity the poor scientists who made the discovery (not the discovery alleged in the title, of course; that would apparently be asking too much). They have been totally misrepresented.

Other Comments by jeremynel

49. Comment #197732 by Simonw on June 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Can someone refresh my memory on bee sexual behaviour as well.

I was fairly sure that some female honey bees don't reproduce in some sort of "elective" fashion, or through suppression by the Queen.

In that they can become fertile when the queen is absent, or under other circumstances. I seem to remember that the behaviour is the kind of complex mess you'd expect from evolution (or a noodle-ly creator god). Of course that might just be our sexually sophisticated European honey bees, other genera of honey bees may behave differently.

I remember thinking at the time that someone had spent a LONG time watching honey bees VERY closely, in figuring out the complexity of bee reproduction - I guess some people like honey even more than I do.

It is all a lot more complex than one queen - lots of men who do nothing - which is the simplified version we got taught at school. Which is both rather boring, and so far from the magnificent truth that I felt short changed when I learnt more.

Other Comments by Simonw

50. Comment #197936 by Count von Count on June 23, 2008 at 1:01 am

thewhitepearl-
Ahhh the book that changed it all for me...

Indeed! A friend of mine, when asked to borrow his copy of "The God Delusion," often instead convinces the borrower to read "The Selfish Gene" instead. Any thoughts on which might do a better job 'converting' someone?

I have read "The Selfish Gene," but not "The God Delusion," so I think I am exempt from guessing.

Other Comments by Count von Count