ArticleBiology direct2021
Why call it developmental bias when it is just development?
Article in Biology direct, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene-level complexity explains genome-wide variation in the distribution of fitness effects.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Bounding phenotype transition probabilities via conditional complexity.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- The structure of an ancient genotype-phenotype map shaped the functional evolution of a protein family.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- The structure of an ancient genotype-phenotype map shaped the functional evolution of a protein family.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Developmental Plasticity and the Evolutionary Rescue of a Colonizing Mite.Evolution & development · 2025Article
- The logic of monsters: development and morphological diversity in stem-cell-based embryo models.Interface focus · 2024Review
- The legacy and evolvability of Pere Alberch's ideas.Interface focus · 2024Article
- Random and Natural Non-Coding RNA Have Similar Structural Motif Patterns but Differ in Bulge, Loop, and Bond Counts.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Predicting phenotype transition probabilities via conditional algorithmic probability approximations.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Article
- Morphological Evolution: Bioinspired Methods for Analyzing Bioinspired Robots.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
- A Grand Challenge in Development and Evodevo: Quantifying the Role of Development in Evolution.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The concept of developmental constraints has been central to understand the role of development in morphological evolution. Developmental constraints are classically defined as biases imposed by development on the distribution of morphological variation.This opinion article argues that the concepts of developmental constraints and developmental biases do not accurately represent the role of development in evolution. The concept of developmental constraints was coined to oppose the view that natural selection is all-capable and to highlight the importance of development for understanding evolution. In the modern synthesis, natural selection was seen as the main factor determining the direction of morphological evolution. For that to be the case, morphological variation needs to be isotropic (i.e. equally possible in all directions). The proponents of the developmental constraint concept argued that development makes that some morphological variation is more likely than other (i.e. variation is not isotropic), and that, thus, development constraints evolution by precluding natural selection from being all-capable.This article adds to the idea that development is not compatible with the isotropic expectation by arguing that, in fact, it could not be otherwise: there is no actual reason to expect that development could lead to isotropic morphological variation. It is then argued that, since the isotropic expectation is untenable, the role of development in evolution should not be understood as a departure from such an expectation. The role of development in evolution should be described in an exclusively positive way, as the process determining which directions of morphological variation are possible, instead of negatively, as a process precluding the existence of morphological variation we have no actual reason to expect.This article discusses that this change of perspective is not a mere question of semantics: it leads to a different interpretation of the studies on developmental constraints and to a different research program in evolution and development. This program does not ask whether development constrains evolution. Instead it asks questions such as, for example, how different types of development lead to different types of morphological variation and, together with natural selection, determine the directions in which different lineages evolve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.