Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26246559›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2015

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions.

Kevin N Laland, Tobias Uller, Marcus W Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, John Odling-Smee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 220 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
220citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

220 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. From episodes to populations: evolutionary explanation requires a constructive epistemology.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. What teleology (if any) does the Organisational Approach naturalise?History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Enzyme Catalytic Parameters and Evolution Across the Dissipation Plane.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

160 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kevin N LalandSchool of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, UK knl1@st-andrews.ac.uk.
Tobias UllerEdward Grey Institute, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Department of Biology, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden.
Marcus W FeldmanDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Herrin Hall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Kim SterelnySchool of Philosophy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Gerd B MüllerDepartment of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Armin MoczekDepartment of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-7107, USA.
Eva JablonkaCohn Institute for the History of Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
John Odling-SmeeMansfield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific activities take place within the structured sets of ideas and assumptions that define a field and its practices. The conceptual framework of evolutionary biology emerged with the Modern Synthesis in the early twentieth century and has since expanded into a highly successful research program to explore the processes of diversification and adaptation. Nonetheless, the ability of that framework satisfactorily to accommodate the rapid advances in developmental biology, genomics and ecology has been questioned. We review some of these arguments, focusing on literatures (evo-devo, developmental plasticity, inclusive inheritance and niche construction) whose implications for evolution can be interpreted in two ways—one that preserves the internal structure of contemporary evolutionary theory and one that points towards an alternative conceptual framework. The latter, which we label the 'extended evolutionary synthesis' (EES), retains the fundaments of evolutionary theory, but differs in its emphasis on the role of constructive processes in development and evolution, and reciprocal portrayals of causation. In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism-environment complementarity. We spell out the structure, core assumptions and novel predictions of the EES, and show how it can be deployed to stimulate and advance research in those fields that study or use evolutionary biology.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionModels, BiologicalArchaeaBacterial Physiological PhenomenaDevelopmental BiologyEcologyEukaryotaGenomicsdevelopmental plasticityevolutionary developmental biologyextended evolutionary synthesisinclusive inheritanceniche constructionreciprocal causation

Identifiers

PMID26246559
PMCPMC4632619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.