The evolutionary transition from single-celled to multicellular individuality requires organismal fitness to shift from the cell level to a cell group. This reorganization of fitness occurs by re-allocating the two components of fitness, survival and reproduction, between two specialized cell types in the multicellular group: soma and germ, respectively. How does the genetic basis for such fitness reorganization evolve? One possible mechanism is the co-option of life history genes present in the unicellular ancestors of a multicellular lineage. For instance, single-celled organisms must regulate their investment in survival and reproduction in response to environmental changes, particularly decreasing reproduction to ensure survival under stress. Such stress response life history genes can provide the genetic basis for the evolution of cellular differentiation in multicellular lineages. The regA-like gene family in the volvocine green algal lineage provides an excellent model system to study how this co-option can occur. We discuss the origin and evolution of the volvocine regA-like gene family, including regA—the gene that controls somatic cell development in the model organism Volvox carteri. We hypothesize that the co-option of life history trade-off genes is a general mechanism involved in the transition to multicellular individuality, making volvocine algae and the regA-like family a useful template for similar investigations in other lineages.

The hierarchy of life is the organizing framework for biology. An analysis of commonly used U.S. undergraduate biology textbooks revealed that while introductory college biology textbooks teach this framework, its origin and evolution are not taught. In the next tier of college courses devoted to evolution, the hierarchy of life is given little or no emphasis as an organizing framework. Hierarchical structure was not present at the origin of life; it evolved, yet biology courses are not teaching how and why it evolved. Here, we use the theory of evolutionary transitions in individuality (ETIs) to teach the evolution of nested hierarchical structure. ETI theory explains how groups of cooperating individuals evolved into new kinds of evolutionary individuals that make up the hierarchy of life. We demonstrate how incorporating ETI theory into college courses unites common subjects and learning goals while aligning with “Vision and Change,” a common framework for designing effective and relevant university biology curricula. Since ETI theory is based on the same social principles students encounter in their lives, we expect this approach to be both engaging and intuitive to students. Teaching ETI theory addresses a major gap in biology instruction: the disconnect between using the hierarchy of life as an organizing framework, but not teaching how and why it evolved.

The damaging outcomes of racist ideologies continue to influence all aspects of society. This in spite of the fact that at their core these ideologies rely on a fundamentally false assumption: that biologically there are different races among humans. The source of this fallacy is pseudoscience and historical prejudice, and yet even scientists and medical professionals continue to apply misconceptions about biological race when performing research or practicing medicine. Scientific educators are in a unique position to dismantle the central damaging assumption, and here we provide a straightforward approach that educators can employ for engaging in this conversation. It is organized around four questions that build sequentially and integrate the latest science with a history of the topic: How did the myth of biological subcategories of humans become ingrained as a scientific concept? How has scientists’ approach to taxonomy changed since Linnaeus’s first human classifications? What does biology now tell us about variation within the human species? Why is it critical to debunk this myth? We provide answers with which scientific educators can re-center the conversation around historical and scientific facts, while highlighting how misapplication of the evidence harms the integrity of science as a field.