Feature

Probing an evolutionary riddle

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  23 Aug 2019:
Vol. 365, Issue 6455, pp. 748-749
DOI: 10.1126/science.365.6455.748

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Media Guidelines Discourage Reporting Evolutionary Theories of Suicide
    • Kristen L. Syme, PhD candidate, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University
    • Other Contributors:
      • Edward H. Hagen, Professor, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University

    Elizabeth Culotta’s article on evolutionary theories of suicide [1] discusses contributions by Humphrey and Soper but omits prior, more influential work by deCatanzaro who theorized that low reproductive potential and burdensomeness on kin predicted suicidality. [2] This evolutionary theory influenced Joiner’s now popular interpersonal theory, which emphasizes perceived burdensomeness. [3] Despite interviewing us for an hour, Culotta also did not mention our hypothesis, grounded in over a century of ethnography on suicide in small-scale societies, that suicidality evolved as a costly, honest signal of need. [4] When Syme wrote to inquire about these omissions, Culotta replied that in adhering to CPA media guidelines that discourage portraying “suicide as achieving results and solving problems” [5], she and the editors omitted theories proposing evolutionary benefits. She also encouraged us to write this letter.
    We agree that news coverage of suicidality should take precautions. However, the exact causes mediating media coverage and suicide contagion are unknown. [5] The media guidelines, therefore, have the effect of excluding coverage of much evolutionary research on suicide, not because of a lack of scientific merit but because of an uncertain risk to some readers.
    Science reporting rallies interest, frames scientific discussions, and can influence how funding agencies allocate limited resources. We are concerned that the original article has given our colle...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • RE: Have humans developed natural defenses against suicide?

    Clifford Alan Soper tries to explain "how deliberate, intentional self-killing came to be a part of the behavioral repertoire of human species" (p. 1.). (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319772998).

    Nicholas Humphrey thinks that "A person who can see through the logic behind her suicidal impulses may be best placed to resist them".

    Humphrey is asking about ontogeny; Soper is asking about phylogeny.

    So, "Have humans developed natural defenses against suicide?" Does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny?

    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science

Navigate This Article