Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: image scoring or standing strategy?

Theorists have only recently shown that cooperation through indirect reciprocity can evolve. The first modelling approach favoured a mechanism called image scoring. Helping someone increases one's image score, whereas refusing to help reduces it. The evolutionary outcome was a discriminator image scoring strategy that helps everybody who has, for example, a positive image score. Two experimental studies with humans found results that were compatible with discriminator image scoring. However, a new analysis of other theorists, based on another population structure, has cast doubts on the evolutionary stability of strategies using the recipient's score as a sole basis for decision. The new theoretical study confirmed that a strategy aiming at "good standing" has superior properties and easily beats image scoring. An individual loses good standing by failing to help a recipient in good standing, whereas failing to help recipients who lack good standing does not damage the standing of a potential donor (but would reduce his image score). The present empirical study with 23 groups of seven human subjects each was designed for distinguishing between the two proposed mechanisms experimentally. The results differed strongly from standing strategies, which might demand too much working memory capacity, but were compatible with image scoring or a similar strategy to a large extent. Furthermore, donors of constant "NO players" compensated for their refusing to help these players by being more generous to others.     

How should we define goodness?--reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity

Theory of indirect reciprocity is important in explaining cooperation between humans. Since a partner of a social interaction often changes, an individual should assess his partner by using social information such as reputation and make decisions whether to help him or not. To those who have 'good' social reputation does a player give aid as reciprocation, whereas he has to refuse to help those who have 'bad' reputation. Otherwise benefits of altruism is easily exploited by them. Little has been known, however, about the definition of 'goodness' in reputation. What kind of actions are and should be regarded as good and what kind of actions bad? And what sort of goodness enables sustaining exchange of altruism? We herein challenge this question with an evolutionary perspective. We generalize social reputation as 'Honor-score' (H-score) and examine the conditions under which individuals in a group stably maintain cooperative relationships based on indirect reciprocity. We examine the condition for evolutionarily stable strategies (ESSs) over 4096 possible cases exhaustively. Mathematical analysis reveals that only eight cases called 'leading eight' are crucial to the evolution of indirect reciprocity. Each in the leading eight shares two common characteristics: (i) cooperation with good persons is regarded as good while defection against them is regarded as bad, and (ii) defection against bad persons should be regarded as a good behavior because it works as sanction. Our results give one solution to the definition of goodness from an evolutionary viewpoint. In addition, we believe that the formalism of reputation dynamics gives general insights into the way social information is generated, handled, and transmitted in animal societies.     

When is Open‐endedness Desirable in Restoration Projects?

A low‐intervention approach to restoration that also allows restoration outcomes to be framed as trajectories of ecosystem change can be described as “open‐ended” restoration. It is an approach which recognizes that long‐term ecosystem behavior involves continual change at small and large spatial and temporal scales. There are a number of situations in which it is appropriate to adopt an open‐ended approach to restoration including: in remote and large areas, where ecological limiting factors will be changed by future climates, where antecedent conditions cannot be replicated, where there are novel starting points for restoration, where restoration relies strongly on processes outside the restoration area, in inherently dynamic systems, where costs are high and where the public demands “wildness.” Where this approach is adopted managers need to explain the project and deal with public expectations and public risk. Monitoring biotic and abiotic components of the project are very important as an open‐ended approach does not equate to “abandon and ignore it.”     

When is bigger better? The effects of group size on the evolution of helping behaviours

Understanding the evolution of sociality in humans and other species requires understanding how selection on social behaviour varies with group size. However, the effects of group size are frequently obscured in the theoretical literature, which often makes assumptions that are at odds with empirical findings. In particular, mechanisms are suggested as supporting large‐scale cooperation when they would in fact rapidly become ineffective with increasing group size. Here we review the literature on the evolution of helping behaviours (cooperation and altruism), and frame it using a simple synthetic model that allows us to delineate how the three main components of the selection pressure on helping must vary with increasing group size. The first component is the marginal benefit of helping to group members, which determines both direct fitness benefits to the actor and indirect fitness benefits to recipients. While this is often assumed to be independent of group size, marginal benefits are in practice likely to be maximal at intermediate group sizes for many types of collective action problems, and will eventually become very small in large groups due to the law of decreasing marginal returns. The second component is the response of social partners on the past play of an actor, which underlies conditional behaviour under repeated social interactions. We argue that under realistic conditions on the transmission of information in a population, this response on past play decreases rapidly with increasing group size so that reciprocity alone (whether direct, indirect, or generalised) cannot sustain cooperation in very large groups. The final component is the relatedness between actor and recipient, which, according to the rules of inheritance, again decreases rapidly with increasing group size. These results explain why helping behaviours in very large social groups are limited to cases where the number of reproducing individuals is small, as in social insects, or where there are social institutions that can promote (possibly through sanctioning) large‐scale cooperation, as in human societies. Finally, we discuss how individually devised institutions can foster the transition from small‐scale to large‐scale cooperative groups in human evolution.     

When is incomplete epigenetic resetting in germ cells favoured by natural selection?

Resetting of epigenetic marks, such as DNA methylation, in germ cells or early embryos is not always complete. Epigenetic states may therefore persist, decay or accumulate across generations. In spite of mounting empirical evidence for incomplete resetting, it is currently poorly understood whether it simply reflects stochastic noise or plays an adaptive role in phenotype determination. Here, we use a simple model to show that incomplete resetting can be adaptive in heterogeneous environments. Transmission of acquired epigenetic states prevents mismatched phenotypes when the environment changes infrequently relative to generation time and when maternal and environmental cues are unreliable. We discuss how these results may help to interpret the emerging data on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in plants and animals.     

When is coercive methadone therapy justified?

Heroin use poses a significant health and economic burden to society, and individuals with heroin dependence are responsible for a significant amount of crime. Owing to its efficacy and cost‐effectiveness, methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) is offered as an optional alternative to imprisonment for drug offenders in several jurisdictions. Some object to such ‘MMT offers’ on the basis that they involve coercion and thus invalidate the offender's consent to MMT. While we find these arguments unpersuasive, we do not attempt to build a case against them here. Instead, we explore whether administration of MMT following acceptance of an MMT offer might be permissible even on the assumption that MMT offers are coercive, and in such a way that the resulting MMT is non‐consensual. We argue that non‐consensual MMT following an MMT offer is typically permissible. We first offer empirical evidence to demonstrate the substantial benefits to the offender and society of implementing non‐consensual MMT in the criminal justice system. We then explore and respond to potential objections to such uses of MMT. These appeal respectively to harm, autonomy, bodily and mental interference, and penal theoretic considerations. Finally, we introduce and dismiss a potential response to our argument that takes a revisionist position, rejecting prevailing incarceration practices.     

When is a maternal effect adaptive?

Maternal effects have become an important field of study in evolutionary ecology and there is an ongoing debate regarding their adaptive significance. Some maternal effects can act to increase offspring fitness and are called 'adaptive maternal effects'. However, other maternal effects decrease offspring fitness and there is confusion regarding whether certain maternal effects are indeed adaptive or merely physiological inevitabilities. Here we suggest that the focus on the consequences of maternal effects for offspring fitness only and the use of 'snapshot' estimates of fitness have misdirected our effort to understand the evolution of maternal effects. We suggest that selection typically acts on maternal effects to maximise maternal rather than (or in addition to) offspring fitness. We highlight the importance of considering how maternal effects influence maternal fitness across a mother's lifetime and describe four broad types of maternal effects using an outcome-based approach. Overall, we suggest that many maternal effects will have an adaptive basis for mothers, regardless of whether these effects increase or decrease survival or reproductive success of individual offspring.     

When is a herbivore not a herbivore?

Summary Young herbivores are not herbivores. With the apparent exception of some chewing insects they cannot survive and growth without eating animal or microbial protein. Further reinforcing how short available nitrogen is in plant food, adult herbivores must feed selectively and depend on intestinal microorganisms to obtain sufficient nitrogen for maintenance and breeding.     

When is a cladist not a cladist?

The term “cladist” has distinct meanings in distinct contexts. Communication between philosophers, historians, and biologists has been hindered by different understandings of the term in various contexts. In this paper I trace historical and conceptual connections between several broadly distinct senses of the term “cladist”. I propose seven specific definitions that capture distinct contemporary uses. This serves to disambiguate some cases where the meaning is unclear, and will help resolve apparent disagreements that in fact result from conflicting understandings of the term.     

When is a peroxisome not a peroxisome?

It is time to drop the glyoxysome name. Recent functional genomics analysis together with cell biology studies emphasize the unifying features of peroxisomes rather than their differences. Plant peroxisomes contain 300 or more proteins, the functions of which are dominated by activities related to fatty acid oxidation (>70 enzymes). By comparison, relatively few proteins are committed to metabolism of reactive oxygen species ( approximately 20) and to photorespiration ( approximately 10). Analysis of triglyceride metabolism in Arabidopsis seedlings now indicates that only two enzymes (isocitrate lyase and malate synthase) potentially distinguish glyoxysomes from other peroxisomes. Future research is best served by focusing on the common features of peroxisomes to establish how these dynamic organelles contribute to energy metabolism, development and responses to environmental challenges.