Abstract

Major advances in ‘unrestricted’ sciences like biology commonly occur when individual scientists (or techniques) cross conventional discipline boundaries; intra-discipline studies are essential for the consolidation and progress of the science, but are less likely to produce significant insights. ‘Restricted’ (or exact) sciences ignore variation, and are probably less sensitive to warping from specialization. This generalization is illustrated by recent controversies in evolutionary biology, particularly the neutralism debates of the 1970s, where over-rigid adherence to theoretical models and unjustified assumptions about the effects of gene action were made. The consequence of some of these is shown by considering genetic changes in house mouse (Mus domesticus) populations which were used to demonstrate apparent drift operating on neutral traits, whereas longitudinal studies of closed populations proved that strong natural selection may operate; a proper understanding of genetical forces requires a knowledge both of the history of particular populations and of environmental pressures varying in time and space.

This content is only available as a PDF.
You do not currently have access to this article.