Present-day evolutionary theory is based on the assumption of random variation plus natural selection. Yet there is considerable evidence that genetic variation is not random, but is conditioned by the life experience of the parent.

Higher organisms have “phenotypic plasticity”, meaning that they adapt within a lifetime to demands of the particular environment that they experience. We know now that some of these adaptations can be passed to offspring via epigenetic inheritance. Furthermore, Shapiro [9] has reported evidence for what he calls “natural genetic engineering” in bacteria. Since there is no separation of germline from soma in bacteria, this constitutes Lamarckian inheritance in bacteria.

To date, genetic inheritance of acquired traits in metazoa is still firmly rejected by the biological community, for reasons that are largely historic. Few biologists realize that the question of Lamarckian inheritance has never been tested with a clear and well-designed experiment.

The nineteenth century history of evolutionary theory is often caricatured by distinguishing Darwinism from Lamarckism. In the caricature, Lamarck [1] said that giraffes stretch their necks to reach higher branches, and this leads to longer necks in their offspring. In the caricature, Darwin said that mutations are the result of accident, purely random and blind to their consequence; so that selection must do all the work of separating a tiny set of adaptive mutations from a much larger set of detrimental mutations.

But in fact, Darwin espoused both mechanisms. In the Origin of Species [2], he used the phrase “use and disuse”, emphasized to a greater extent in later editions. Later, he was more explicit: “When I wrote the ‘Origin,’ and for some years afterwards, I could find little good evidence of the direct action of the environment; now there is a large body of evidence.” [3]

But in the writings of August Weismann [4], and in the Modern Synthesis [5], there is no place for Lamarckian inheritance. In Soviet Russia of the 1930s, Trofim Lysenko sought to establish an experimental foundation for Lamarckism, and his experimental design was so poor, his approach so clearly biased that his work had the paradoxical effect of discrediting Lamarckism for generations to come.

Evidence for Lamarckian inheritance

1.    “Epigenetic inheritance” is the transmission of traits by other means than genes themselves, especially the chemical decorations of DNA that determine gene expression. It is well-established that epigenetic inheritance is Lamarckian [6].
2.    Mutation rates vary across the genome in a way that promotes change in those parts of the genome most likely to create adaptive variation. [7]
3.    Stressful environments trigger higher mutation rates generally. [8]
4.    Bacteria actively and adaptively modify their own genomes. [9]
5.    Transposons are snippets of DNA that can copy themselves and insert in different locations, even crossing chromosomes. Recently, it has been realized that some of these transposons have effect on transcription of nearby genes. [10]
6.    Most generally and most speculatively, many theorists have noted that the efficiency and historic speed of evolutionary change are difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that all genetic variation is purely random.

In summary, Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance is well-established. Lamarckian genetic inheritance is observed in bacteria (where there is no soma, and all chromosomes are germ line). It remains only to ask whether Lamarckian inheritance in multi-celled organisms might also occur through feedback from the soma to the germline

Proposed Experiments

Experiments are currently under way at Washington University St Louis Medical School with large populations of C. elegans worms. If these reveal evidence of Lamarckian inheritance, they will require confirmation from experiments with larger animals before the conservative community of evolutionary biologists will accept the results. One problem is that in population studies, it is difficult to establish a clean separation between selection and biased mutation rates. Supportive evidence from large animal or plant experiments will make the case stronger.

1.    There is a Mexican fish that has a blind cave-dwelling variety and a sighted stream-dwelling variety. The experiment I propose is to cross a blind fish with a sighted fish, both raised in darkness, and compare the results when both fish are raised in a fully-lighted tank. Compare the proportion of blind offspring in the two cases. It will then be necessary to analyze the two genomes to demonstrate that the difference is really genetic and not epigenetic.

2.    Choose a salt-tolerant annual plant [11], and grow 100 different plants in graded conditions of salinity, such that plant #1 is watered with no salt at all, and plant #100 gets a lethal salt concentration. Grow a second generation, 1 seed from each of the 100 plants, self-pollinated or pollinated by plants grown with the same salinity, and expose them all to a high but sub-lethal salt concentration. Measure the productivity of these 100 plants, and see if their productivity correlates with the salt to which their parent was exposed. Use sequencing to check that the difference is genetic and not only epigenetic.

3.    Proposals for other animal or plant models are also welcome.

Funding Details

Grants are intended to support high‑leverage studies that can produce decisive data with modest resources. There is no pre-determined limits on budgets, rather all proposals will be considered on their merits relative to scope and feasibility. However, priority will be given to proposals that demonstrate: 

• Clear experimental design
• Strong controls and falsifiability
• Potential for replication
• High signal‑to‑noise payoff
• Courageous but disciplined inquiry

How to Apply

Applicants should submit a detailed proposal including 

• Project title and research track
• Researcher CV
• One research paper you have recently written
  
• Background and rationale
• Experimental design and methods
• Budget and timeline
• Expected outcomes and potential implications

Proposals will be reviewed by Josh Mitteldorf. Simply email your materials to: aging.advice@gmail.com

A Call to the Frontier

These grants are designed for investigators who feel the pull of unexplored territory—those who believe that science advances not only by refining what is known, but by venturing into what is not yet understood. If you have a bold idea, a careful design, and the willingness to test the improbable with rigor, Dr. Mitteldorf invites you to apply.

Disclaimer

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is providing this announcement solely for informational purposes. SSE does not participate in the review, selection, funding decisions, or administration of these grants. All aspects of the grant process, including proposal evaluation and award distribution, are managed exclusively by the sponsoring individual.

Applicants should direct all questions and submissions to Dr. Mitteldorf at aging.advice@gmail.com.

References

1.    Lamarck, J.B., Philosophie zoologique: ou exposition des considérations relatives à l'histoire naturelle des animaux. Vol. 1. 1809: Dentu et l'Auteur.
2.    Darwin, C., On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 1859, London: John Murray.
3.    Darwin, F., Charles Darwin: His life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters. 1892, London: John Murray.
4.    Weismann, A., et al., Essays upon heredity and kindred biological problems. 2d ed. 1891, Oxford,: Clarendon press. 2 v.
5.    Maynard Smith, J., Evolutionary Genetics. 1989, New York: Oxford University Press.
6.    Jablonka, E. and G. Raz, Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 2009. 84(2): p. 131-176.
7.    Sniegowski, P.D., et al., The evolution of mutation rates: separating causes from consequences. Bioessays, 2000. 22(12): p. 1057-1066.
8.    Bjedov, I., et al., Stress-Induced Mutagenesis in Bacteria. Science, 2003.
300(5624): p. 1404-1409.
9.    Shapiro, J.A., Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. 2011, Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
10.    Elbarbary, R.A., B.A. Lucas, and L.E. Maquat, Retrotransposons as regulators of gene expression. Science, 2016. 351(6274): p. aac7247.
11.    Yamaguchi, T. and E. Blumwald, Developing salt-tolerant crop plants: challenges and opportunities. Trends Plant Sci., 2005. 10(12): p. 615-620.