A guest post from Erika Cule.
When a glossy leaflet advertising the first Nature Darwin Debate – Are we still evolving? – dropped out of my copy of Nature, I sent an email to my coursemates enticing them with the comment ‘ Henry Gee, who is on the panel, is quite an amusing chap.’ We are a small group studying for the same MSc – only fourteen students, with backgrounds in computer science, mathematics and biology. To my surprise, nine of them rushed to book tickets and five-sevenths of the course found our way to the equally glossy Kings Place on Monday night.
The evening was introduced by Nick Campbell, Managing Editor of Nature, and the Chair was Oliver Morton, Chief News and Features Editor. As well as chairing the debate, Oliver had the unenviable task of fielding questions simultaneously from the floor and from Khufu Conference Centre, Elucian Islands, where a global audience witnessed the proceedings from Second Life.
Joining the aforementioned ‘wonderful character’ (1) on the panel were Professor Andrew Pomiankowski, Professor of Genetics at UCL and – of particular interest to us as Bioinformatics students – the Director of CoMPLEX, UCL’s inter-disciplinary research centre for mathematical biology. Professor Pomiankowski took to the floor first, opened with a recurring motif for the debate. All of the panel were in agreement that, given the continued presence of heritable variation and selection, yes, we are still evolving, but as the evening continued it emerged that the devil is in the details. Andrew envisaged progressive homogenization of the human race, as we interbreed increasingly extensively.
Second to enter into the discussion was Dr Susan Blackmore, a Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth, a psychologist and a writer. Dr Blackmore brought some interesting ideas on where evolution will take the future of our planet. In an extension of the concept of DNA as a replicator, one of Susan’s research topics is that of memes, information that is copied from person to person. Susan envisages a future in which technology is the driving force behind a third form of replication, a concept which yielded some imaginative questions from the floor.
Back in January, when I enticed my coursemates into accompanying me for the evening, I assumed that by the time February rolled around Henry would have abandoned his New Year’s Resolution. However, the lines on the future of human evolution were met with tumultuous applause – a computer-scientist compatriot muttered to me ’He’s good, huh?’ – phew, vindicated!
A paparazzo moment after the debate. L to R: Dr Susan Blackmore, Dr Henry Gee, Oliver Morton and Professor Andrew Pomiankowski.
With each of the panel having made their case, questions from the floor – and from Second Life – came thick and fast. Well-rehearsed arguments, such as whether medical advances have reduced selective pressure, were discussed. More esoteric ideas emerged – the effect of avoiding death on evolutionary change was considered. Susan’s suggestion of replicating technologies led the panel to consider how selective pressure will operate when it acts on human-machine hybrids. And in a sobering moment, one audience member pondered whether humans have, through their own actions, sewn the seeds of our own destruction by way of climate change, and hence effectively ended human evolution.
On a lighter note, the discussion ended with a round-up of the traits the panel would – were such preferences possible – like to evolve. I invite you continue this discussion with your own suggestions on the London Forum.
(1) Quotation from a member of the audience.