The role of evolutionary theory at the origin of life is an extensively debated topic. The origin and early development of life is usually separated into a prebiotic phase and a protocellular phase, ultimately leading to the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Most likely, the Last Universal Common Ancestor was subject to Darwinian evolution, but the question remains to what extent Darwinian evolution applies to the prebiotic and protocellular phases. In this review, we reflect on the current status of evolutionary theory in origins of life research by bringing together philosophy of science, evolutionary biology, and empirical research in the origins field. We explore the various ways in which evolutionary theory has been extended beyond biology; we look at how these extensions apply to the prebiotic development of (proto)metabolism; and we investigate how the terminology from evolutionary theory is currently being employed in state-of-the-art origins of life research. In doing so, we identify some of the current obstacles to an evolutionary account of the origins of life, as well as open up new avenues of research.

The sciences in their broadness of disciplines, ranging from the humanities, social sciences to the natural and applied medical sciences, constitute an endeavor that is necessarily embedded in a social fabric. They are in constant interaction with societal conditions, needs, ethical and regulatory norms, and moral values. Universities and research institutions deliver findings and inventions, and educate students for society as a whole. The sciences can do this to a large extent in a self-regulated manner, but the state and the society fund research and teaching, and expect solutions for the problems of society from the sciences. Accordingly, the sciences can transcend their boundaries with society by explicitly taking into account the needs of society. Conversely, there is often only a minimal level of understanding of scientific processes and products in society. The sciences are thus under increasing pressure to communicate their internal decision-making processes and findings in a way that non-scientists can understand.

The broad area of ethical reflection on the production of knowledge in the sciences as well as on scientific practice more generally involves different dimensions of interaction between ethics as an academic discipline and the various sciences. Existing approaches therefore use different prepositions to indicate the various ways in which ethics and science can be related: authors describe the field as ethics of science, ethics and science, ethics in science, and ethics for science. In this chapter, we will provide an overview of these different modes of interaction. We will address the overarching question where ethical reflection should be located in relation to scientific practice. Should ethics, which as a field is an integral part of philosophy, be seen as taking a critical perspective on the sciences from the outside, as suggested by the expression “ethics of science”? Are ethics and science best understood as separate areas of work that may interact but each follow their own trajectories—as suggested by “ethics and science”? Should ethics be embedded within the sciences, involving a social internalization within the respective science in the form of a genuine “ethics in science”? Or should ethics think of itself as among other things an enterprise in the service of improving the sciences—as suggested by the phrase “ethics for science”? We will examine the internal and external normativity of the sciences—i.e., standards of good scientific practice and academic integrity, and ethical assessment of the impact of science on society and the interplay of societal values and scientific practice, respectively. We will discuss approaches to resolving the relationship between ethics and science in a variety of ways, including applied bioethics education for life scientists, formal research ethics guidelines, the role of IRBs and research ethics committees, and the role of moral philosophers in interdisciplinary research projects. Each approach represents a different understanding of the interaction between ethics and the sciences, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. On the basis of our assessment, we argue for an integrative program that can overcome the limitations set by conceptual differences and differences in styles of argumentation between moral philosophers and researchers in other academic domains. This integrative program involves a continuous exchange between stakeholders on the epistemic and normative dimensions of the topics in focus in their research.