The Rift in Evolutionary Biology

The rift in the biological sciences may lie between computational biologists and wet labs, but when we look at individual fields, we see other divisions. In an essay in PLoS Computational Biology Carl Zimmer describes the divide amongst evolutionary biologists. On one side are researchers who like to get their hands dirty -- ecologists, paleontologists, and others that fall under the label 'naturalist'. And on the other side we have the people that prefer to work with molecular tools; Zimmer calls these guys computational biologists, but they also generate their own data, so that label isn't quite correct. The rift between evolutionary biologists essentially boils down to people studying morphological/phenotypic evolution and those studying molecular evolution.

Zimmer points out that this division is quite old -- dating back to the early days of genetics. Only recently have we developed the tools allowing us to bridge that divide. The future of evolutionary research lies not in the study of the evolution of phenotypes or genomes alone, but in research programs that bridge the gap. For example, what are the phenotypic effects of all that copy number polymorphism? The top research labs should view Zimmer's rift as a great opportunity for interdisciplinary research.

See also: Carl Zimmer's blog entry.

More like this

I can't speak for each and every one of the other biologist types in the house here at ScienceBlogs, but one comment on Chad's post on highfalutin particle physicists struck a chord with me. It all starts with this quote getting back at people who think their research is the be all and end all of…
Alex Palazzo managed to piss off some people with his taxonomy of biomedical disciplines. We have also learned that there are different types of physics geeks and anthropologists. (By the way, don't ever call me a geek; geeks bite the heads off of chickens. I'm a nerd.) I previously attempted to…
Razib pointed out this blog article on theory in biology. The author deals with three, self defined, points: Unifying theory in biology. Theory vs. experimental biology. Justification through medical applications. His first point, that biology (or a given biological discipline) lacks a…
As I mentioned before, you should definitely check out the Tangled Bank. This bi-week's issue is quite diverse (and all the astronomers seem to be talking about the "earth-like" planet). One entry comes from an extremely opinionated anthropologist who calls out quantitative geneticists: Chimps…

another issue is the difference between those who use molecular evolution as an means (e.g., ecologists) and those who see the study of molecular evolution as an ends (this is the more the computational people). some in the former may dismiss molecular work as 'reductionism,' but many are also quite happy to build upon this 'reductionist' base.

another issue is the difference between those who use molecular evolution as an means (e.g., ecologists) and those who see the study of molecular evolution as an ends (this is the more the computational people)

Yes, and some of the arguments over things like "DNA Barcoding" relate to this. Most molecular phylogeny types hate barcoding because the proposed tags are generally not very informative phylogenetically. Many ecologist types don't care, because they aren't interested in making trees; they just want a tool that can distinguish one species from another at the molecular level.