Is there an elephant in the room? Addressing rival approaches to the interpretation of growth perturbations and small size

Abstract

Two interpretations of growth perturbation and small size are commonly applied in human biology: an adaptationist approach in which small size is considered to be an a relatively beneficial adjustment to environmental stressors, and a biomedical approach in which small size is considered nonadaptive, a sign of dysfunction or pathology. These two interpretations conflict, but are used without acknowledging or addressing the conflict. This article reviews the strengths and weaknesses of the two. This exercise does not prove the indisputable superiority of either approach. Considerations of epistemology show that biologists will never be faced with a decisive test of either, much as they might like such clear cut evidence. Nevertheless, it is possible that a gradual decrease in the productivity of one approach will become a sufficient reason to abandon it. Alternatively, if specific areas of application can be distinguished, each approach might continue to be productive in its own domain.