Having it all: historical energy intakes do not generate the anticipated trade-offs in fecundity

An axiom of life-history theory, and fundamental to our understanding of ageing, is that animals must trade-off their allocation of resources since energy and nutrients are limited. Therefore, animals cannot "have it all"--combine high rates of fecundity with extended lifespans. The idea of life-history trade-offs was recently challenged by the discovery that ageing may be governed by a small subset of molecular processes independent of fitness. We tested the "trade-off" and "having it all" theories by examining the fecundities of C57BL/6J mice placed onto four different dietary treatments that generated caloric intakes from -21 to +8.6% of controls. We predicted body fat would be deposited in relation to caloric intake. Excessive body fat is known to cause co-morbidities that shorten lifespan, while caloric restriction enhances somatic protection and increases longevity. The trade-off model predicts that increased fat would be tolerated because reproductive gain offsets shortened longevity, while animals on a restricted intake would sacrifice reproduction for lifespan extension. The responses of body fat to treatments followed our expectations, however, there was a negative relationship between reproductive performance (fecundity, litter mass) and historical intake/body fat. Our dietary restricted animals had lower protein oxidative damage and appeared able to combine life-history traits in a manner contrary to traditional expectations by having increased fecundity with the potential to have extended lifespans.     

Racial discrimination: How not to do it

The UNESCO Statements on Race of the early 1950s are understood to have marked a consensus amongst natural scientists and social scientists that ‘race’ is a social construct. Human biological diversity was shown to be predominantly clinal, or gradual, not discreet, and clustered, as racial naturalism implied. From the seventies social constructionists added that the vast majority of human genetic diversity resides within any given racialised group. While social constructionism about race became the majority consensus view on the topic, social constructionism has always had its critics. Sesardic (2010) has compiled these criticisms into one of the strongest defences of racial naturalism in recent times. In this paper I argue that Sesardic equivocates between two versions of racial naturalism: a weak version and a strong version. As I shall argue, the strong version is not supported by the relevant science. The weak version, on the other hand, does not contrast properly with what social constructionists think about ‘race’. By leaning on this weak view Sesardic’s racial naturalism intermittently gains an appearance of plausibility, but this view is too weak to revive racial naturalism. As Sesardic demonstrates, there are new arguments for racial naturalism post-Human Genome Diversity Project. The positive message behind my critique is how to be a social constructionist about race in the post-genomic era.