Cor Van Der Weele

Two approaches to an integration of evolution and development are often distinguished, one neo-Darwinian and the other structuralist. Should these approaches in turn be integrated? Kelly Smith recently stated that we need a more complete theory of biological order, suggesting integration as the ideal. In response to him, I argue that a recognition of different types of scientific questions and causal explanation is more urgent. Do we understand development when we know the crucial factors in the process of differentiation, or rather when we know the laws that govern the transformations of fields? Without a recognition of these different explanatory ideals, integration is likely to have the character of annexation.

New technology has a prominent place in the theory and practice of innovation, but the association between high tech and innovation is not inevitable. In this paper, we discuss six metaphorical heroes of agricultural innovation, starting with the dominant hero of frontier science and technology. At first sight, our six heroes can be divided in those who are pro- and those who are anti-technology. Yet in the end technology, and more specifically GM technology, does not emerge as the main issue. Empowering the poor, finding solutions for urgent climate problems, and enhancing the quality of our daily relations to food and the environment – these are the issues the heroes are fighting for. Relations between innovation and technology are better seen as a matter of pragmatic consideration, we will argue

With regard to the theoretical place of environmental factors in development, three approaches to evolution and development can be distinguished. One is the neo-Darwinist approach in which genetic programs are central. The other two present themselves as alternatives to the gene-centrism in present-day biology. I discuss pairwise similarities and differences between the three approaches. Goodwin's approach differs from neo-Darwinism in its favoured types of causes, but shares the internalist perspective on embryological development. The constructionist alternative proposes to enlarge the developmental system to include external factors, and shares with neo-Darwinism the emphasis on contingent causes. Thus there is neither a grand dichotomy in biology, between neo-Darwinism and its alternative, nor a grand trichotomy. Different purposes make different approaches useful. I conclude by arguing that environmental influences should have a more prominent place in developmental biology.