Editing Selfish genetic element (section)

=== Conceptual developments ===
The empirical study of selfish genetic elements benefited greatly from the emergence of the so-called gene-centred view of evolution in the nineteen sixties and seventies.<ref name=":25">{{cite journal | vauthors = Ågren JA | title = Selfish genetic elements and the gene's-eye view of evolution | journal = Current Zoology | volume = 62 | issue = 6 | pages = 659–665 | date = December 2016 | pmid = 29491953 | pmc = 5804262 | doi = 10.1093/cz/zow102  }}</ref> In contrast with Darwin's original formulation of the theory of evolution by natural selection that focused on individual organisms, the gene's-eye view takes the gene to be the central unit of selection in evolution.<ref>{{citation |title=Selfish Genes |last1= Ågren |first1=Jon Arvid |last2=Hurst |first2=Greg | name-list-style = vanc |date=2017-10-25 |website=Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets |doi=10.1093/obo/9780199941728-0094 }}</ref> It conceives evolution by natural selection as a process involving two separate entities: replicators (entities that produce faithful copies of themselves, usually genes) and vehicles (or interactors; entities that interact with the ecological environment, usually organisms).<ref>{{Cite book|title=The extended phenotype : the long reach of the gene|last=Dawkins |first=Richard | name-list-style = vanc |author-link=Richard Dawkins|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1982|oclc=610269469}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Dawkins R | chapter = Replicators and vehicles | editor = King's College Sociobiology Group, Cambridge | title =  Current Problems in Sociobiology. | publisher = Cambridge University Press | date = June 1982 | pages = 45–64 | isbn = 978-0-521-28520-9 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Hull DL | chapter = Units of Evolution: A Metaphysical Essay | veditors = Jensen UJ, Harré R | title = The Philosophy of Evolution | publisher = St. Martin's Press | date = 1981 | pages = 23–44 }}</ref>

Since organisms are temporary occurrences, present in one generation and gone in the next, genes (replicators) are the only entity faithfully transmitted from parent to offspring. Viewing evolution as a struggle between competing replicators made it easier to recognize that not all genes in an organism would share the same evolutionary fate.<ref name=":25" />

The gene's-eye view was a synthesis of the population genetic models of the modern synthesis, in particular the work of [[RA Fisher]], and the social evolution models of [[W. D. Hamilton]]. The view was popularized by  [[George C. Williams (biologist)|George Williams]]'s ''[[Adaptation and Natural Selection]]''<ref name=":2" /> and [[Richard Dawkins]]'s best seller ''[[The Selfish Gene]]''.<ref name="TSG"/> Dawkins summarized a key benefit from the gene's-eye view as follows:

<blockquote>"If we allow ourselves the license of talking about genes as if they had conscious aims, always reassuring ourselves that we could translate our sloppy language back into respectable terms if we wanted to, we can ask the question, what is a single selfish gene trying to do?"  — Richard Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene''<ref name="TSG"/>{{rp|p. 88}}</blockquote>

In 1980, two high-profile papers published back-to-back in ''Nature'' by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick, and by Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza, brought the study of selfish genetic elements to the centre of biological debate.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /> The papers took their starting point in the contemporary debate of the so-called [[C-value|C-value paradox]], the lack of correlation between genome size and perceived complexity of a species. Both papers attempted to counter the prevailing view of the time that the presence of differential amounts of non-coding DNA and transposable elements is best explained from the perspective of individual fitness, described as the "phenotypic paradigm" by Doolittle and Sapienza. Instead, the authors argued that much of the genetic material in eukaryotic genomes persists, not because of its phenotypic effects, but can be understood from a gene's-eye view, without invoking individual-level explanations. The two papers led to a series of exchanges in ''Nature''.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Cavalier-Smith T | title = How selfish is DNA? | journal = Nature | volume = 285 | issue = 5767 | pages = 617–8 | date = June 1980 | pmid = 7393317 | doi = 10.1038/285617a0 | bibcode = 1980Natur.285..617C | s2cid = 27111068 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Dover G | title = Ignorant DNA? | journal = Nature | volume = 285 | issue = 5767 | pages = 618–20 | date = June 1980 | pmid = 7393318 | doi = 10.1038/285618a0 | bibcode = 1980Natur.285..618D | s2cid = 4261755 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Dover G, Doolittle WF | title = Modes of genome evolution | journal = Nature | volume = 288 | issue = 5792 | pages = 646–7 | date = December 1980 | pmid = 6256636 | doi = 10.1038/288646a0 | bibcode = 1980Natur.288..646D | s2cid = 8938434 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Orgel LE, Crick FH, Sapienza C | title = Selfish DNA | journal = Nature | volume = 288 | issue = 5792 | pages = 645–6 | date = December 1980 | pmid = 7453798 | doi = 10.1038/288645a0 | bibcode = 1980Natur.288..645O | s2cid = 4370178 }}</ref>