Can we agree to disagree?
The HPGG journal is launching a new and original type of scientific contribution which we believe will be useful to our community. By community we do not limit ourselves to the community of scientists interested in human population genetics and genomics. We aim at a much bigger community. A community that certainly includes the people interested in the interpretation of genetic and genomic data, but the community we wish to talk to is a community that looks beyond humans. Our “Debates” may always start from an issue that is important for human population geneticists, but we believe that it should always interest the wider community of evolutionary biologists or, more widely, people interested in evolutionary biology and evolutionary processes, in the interpretation of genetic data.
The debates we wish to promote should thus interest those who are trained in social sciences but wish to understand the current state of the art and the controversies that cross our ever changing field. Rather than representing our science as a monolith of widespread consensus, we wish to illuminate as well, the tiny (or not so tiny) corners from which future consensus may one day emerge, first as a minority view and later as a widely accepted view. A widely accepted view that will itself be the target of new debates.
Our objective is to present in a respectful but possibly opinionated way, the two (or more) sides of an ongoing controversy. In some cases, when a consensus is questioned for instance, many outsiders or even practitioners may not even know that a debate is going on.
Our “Debates” section is the place where we would like to see these conversations. They should reflect the conversations which can take place after a conference, when two scientists or groups of scientists disagree and start arguing in a respectful way, when we as outsiders have this incredible luck to hear specialists identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing theories. Subjects should all be related to what makes the heart of the journal, and should thus have something to do with our species, Homo sapiens. However, methods and theoretical frameworks applied to human populations often end up being applied to other species. Conversely, work carried out in other organisms can also influence human population genomics. We thus see these debates as central and crucial for any evolutionary biologist, working on any species, and for anybody wishing to understand some of the most exciting advances in biological sciences.
The working details will likely evolve as the “Debates” become, as we hope, established. The practical details on how to submit ideas for new Debates can be found here : LINK, but as a general principle our debates could start in any of the following ways:
- Debaters have been identified and have agreed to debate. Debaters may be single individuals or groups of individuals. For simplicity we call them D1 and D2. We hypothesize that D1 is going to challenge a consensus. D1 will thus prepare a short text where s/he/they present(s) their argument as to why they believe that a consensus is incorrect or misleading or that serious weaknesses of a consensus are evaded when they should be faced. Once this is done, D2 who has been aware of the challenge will prepare a response to the text that has been submitted to him/her/them. This second text will be presented to D1 who will have the possibility to answer. The three texts will be published together possibly at the same time, but depending on the speed at which answers are written the editors may publish the different texts as they are submitted. Even if they appear at different times (i.e. in different issues) they will be collated in the HPGG website, under the Debate section. We note that the texts will go through an editorial and reviewing process. This will mainly be done to avoid publishing pieces that go against the ethical principles of the journal.
- One Debater (D1) has contacted us suggesting a subject for Debate but no D2 has yet been identified, either by D1 or by our editorial team. After peer and editorial review we may publish the first text and call for contributions to Debate with the community.
In both cases, readers may decide to contribute to the Debate (and become D3) if they feel that some points that could have been raised have not. New contributions will thus be evaluated to determine whether the new contribution does indeed add to the existing Debate.
The objective of the Debate section is to remind us that what makes science what it is not consensus but rather disagreements, and the questioning of apparently obvious assumptions. Science is not based on the repetition of truths but rather on the discussion around the limits of current knowledge or assumptions. While we certainly reject relativism we also reject absolutism. Our Debates will hopefully be the place where problems and questions can be put on the table, where younger scientists can decide for themselves whether the apparently accepted consensus is worth supporting or whether new assumptions, ideas should be explored. We believe that this is where the future of science can be constructed.
We are confident that the “Debates” section could be a great success. Members of the editorial board to whom we presented this idea, and all the colleagues that we have contacted, have shown a great interest, agreeing that it will fill a gap. We, however, realize that its success will require the active engagement of the interested community. Debates will be a safe place, but it should not be a cosy place.
It is never easy to be the first to perform a public exercise. We have thus decided, as editors of this section, to set an example and start the Debates section by questioning the ability of admixture statistics to support the case for hybridization between Neanderthals and Sapiens. We will argue that population structure remains too little accounted for and could contribute to explain many patterns we observe in genomic data.
We hope to get many reactions.
Will you agree to disagree?
Editors of the Debates
Lounes Chikhi, PhD
CNRS, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, France
Rémi Tournebize, PhD
CNRS, Universite de Montpellier, France
