Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36945662›Full record

ArticleEvolution2023

How and why we should move beyond natural selection in museums to tackle teleology.

Shelley L Smith

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Shelley L SmithDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19599, Arlington, TX 76019 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Museum displays commonly use a "VIST" approach (Variation, Inheritance, Selection, and Time) to explain evolution to visitors. I contend that this framework, by focusing narrowly on natural selection, unintentionally reinforces intuitive teleological thinking and a "survival of the fittest" mentality. Exhibits that incorporate all the forces (or mechanisms) of evolution will instead challenge visitors' preconceptions and enable them to develop a deeper understanding of evolution. In particular, visitors will appreciate that evolution is not progressive, with modern humans as the "most evolved" species. Results: Explicit and implicit description of the forces of evolution is surveyed in 12 museums: 4 in Texas, 7 elsewhere in the U.S., and the Natural History Museum in London. Museum exhibits focus primarily on natural selection (explicit in 10 of 12) and often mention mutation (explicit in 7). Only the American Museum of Natural History in New York, in my sample, provides an explicit explanation of genetic drift. Conclusions: Heavy emphasis on natural selection and limited explanation of stochastic forces contributes to an impoverished view of evolution. Exhibits should more effectively convey the complexity of microevolution. Computer simulations showing the interactions of evolutionary forces can accomplish this goal.

Indexed as

Evolutionary forcesEvolutionary mechanismsGene flowGenetic driftMutationStochastic

Identifiers

PMID36945662
PMCPMC10020750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read1
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.