De-Darwinization

De-Darwinization is a concept in evolutionary biology and philosophy of science that describes the suppression of Darwinian processes (variation, heritability, and differential fitness) at a lower level of organization to enable the emergence of a new, higher-level evolutionary individual. In essence, for a collective (like a multicellular organism) to become a primary unit of selection, its components (the cells) must lose some of their capacity to evolve independently.

The term was coined by philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith. The process is considered a key component of major evolutionary transitions, particularly the evolution of multicellularity and eusociality.

Origin of the Term

Peter Godfrey-Smith introduced the concept in his framework of “Darwinian populations,” which can be mapped in a “Darwinian space” based on how well they meet the criteria for evolution by natural selection. As a collective of individuals evolves to become a more paradigmatic Darwinian entity itself, it necessarily limits the evolutionary potential of its parts. Godfrey-Smith writes:

“There can be Darwinian individuals within Darwinian individuals … even though collectives tend to partly de-Darwinize their parts.” — Peter Godfrey-Smith, Darwinian Individuals

This reciprocal relationship was summarized by Joeri Witteveen in a review of Godfrey-Smith’s work: “Darwinization at higher level and de-Darwinization at the lower level go together.” (Witteveen 2009).

Mechanisms

Godfrey-Smith and subsequent authors outline several key mechanisms, often abbreviated as “B-G-I,” that drive the de-Darwinization of parts and the Darwinization of the whole:

Bottleneck (B): The life cycle of the higher-level individual begins from a single cell or a small group of cells (e.g., a zygote). This purges variation among the parts in each generation, ensuring the components of a given collective share a common ancestry and are genetically near-identical.
Germline (G): The sequestration of reproduction to a specific lineage of cells (the germline) prevents other component parts (somatic cells) from reproducing and passing on their traits. This directly curtails differential reproductive success among the parts.
Integration (I): The development of physiological and developmental interdependence reduces the autonomy of the parts. Their fates become inextricably linked to the survival and reproduction of the whole, aligning fitness interests at the higher level.

As these mechanisms strengthen, the collective becomes a more cohesive unit of selection, and its components become functionally de-Darwinized.

Applications and Examples

The concept of de-Darwinization has been applied to several major evolutionary phenomena.

Multicellularity and Individuality

The most common application is in the evolution of multicellular organisms. For an organism to function as a coherent whole, its individual cells must have their ability to compete and reproduce independently suppressed. Austin G. Booth used the term in case studies, noting for example that human somatic cells are “de-Darwinized to a far greater extent” than the nuclei within a fungal mycelium (Booth 2014).

Eusociality

In eusocial species, such as ants and bees, sterile worker castes are considered de-Darwinized components of the colony, which acts as the higher-level Darwinian individual. The B-G-I mechanisms apply here as well, with the queen functioning as the germline and colony integration ensuring workers act for the good of the whole rather than their own reproductive interests (Witteveen 2009).

Cancer as Re-Darwinization

If normal somatic tissues are the product of successful de-Darwinization, cancer can be framed as a breakdown of this process—a “re-Darwinization” of cells. Cancer cells re-acquire the properties of variation, heritability, and differential reproduction, allowing them to evolve within the host organism at the expense of the higher-level individual.

“If multicellularity evolved due to a mechanism of de-Darwinization, we might say that cancer cells are re-Darwinized.” — Marta Bertolaso, (2017)

This framing highlights cancer as an evolutionary process occurring within the somatic environment.

Human–AI Symbiosis (Speculative)

Paul B. Rainey has extended the concept hypothetically to the future of human-AI integration. He speculates that if human-AI collectives become a unit of selection, group-level pressures might “drive de-Darwinization of individual humans,” subordinating individual-level fitness to the success of the collective (Rainey 2023).

Limits and Caveats

Authors using the term acknowledge several limitations:

De-Darwinization is partial, not absolute. Godfrey-Smith’s phrasing (“tend to partly de-Darwinize”) is intentional. Some evolutionary dynamics can persist at lower levels, such as clonal selection in the immune system, without compromising the higher-level individual.
Somatic complexity. Research has shown that normal tissues are not entirely quiescent. Somatic mosaicism, clonal expansions, and cell competition can occur, tempering the strongest interpretations of complete somatic de-Darwinization (Świątczak 2021).

References

Bertolaso, Marta. (2017). “Cancer and intercellular cooperation.” Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology. (Open-access on PubMed Central).
Booth, Austin G. (2014). Essays on Biological Individuality (PhD thesis, Harvard). (Open PDF on Harvard DASH).
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Darwinian Individuals. (PDF on author’s website).
Rainey, Paul B. (2023). “Major evolutionary transitions in individuality between humans and AI.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
Świątczak, Bartłomiej. (2021). “Struggle within: evolution and ecology of somatic cell populations.” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. (Open-access on PubMed Central).
Veit, Walter. (2022). “Scaffolding Natural Selection.” Biological Theory.
Witteveen, Joeri. (2009). “Darwinism About Darwinism: Review of Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection.” Biological Theory. (PDF reprint available).

Tags