Hamilton's work has caused the field of evolutionary biology to explode in surprising directions - from discovering why queen bees alone lay eggs in a hive to understanding what triggers social conflict to why cancer cells replicate uncontrollably.

As well, his legacy has changed "the way [that] doctors are thinking about diseases" and how illnesses can change over time, says Joan Herbers, professor of  evolution  and ecology at Ohio State University.

Herbers says that Hamiltonian thinking guides the work of scientists searching for everything from cures for types of cancer to the causes of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and what therapies we can use to conquer it.

Despite their deep influence on an array of scientific disciplines, Hamilton’s theories had a comparatively humble origin.

Hamilton was born in 1936 in Cairo, Egypt, but his family moved to Europe and settled in Kent, England. Although he published fewer than 60 papers during his career, he was arguably the most influential evolutionary biologist since Darwin. Darwin’s theories of natural selection explained the form, function and behaviours of many different animals, but failed to account for altruism in bees and humans. Altruism is basically selflessness. It’s helping another individual for their benefit while suffering a personal cost. In nature, this often manifests as a trait that prevents the helper from having their own babies.

A week or so ago, I watched an old sci-fi movie, circa 1958, with my wife. It featured horrible special effects and an unrealistic story line about manned missions to Mars. Of course, it was made 55 years ago, so it should come as no surprise that the science was outdated, but we also noted that on the flight back to earth, from Mars, all the meals were served by the female scientists. The women were clearly treated as equals, scientifically, but still expected to clean up after dinner and serve the men coffee.

I also recently read a Smithsonian article about Carl Sagan, in anticipation of the new Cosmos series.

It dawned on me, that Sagan spent a considerable amount of his time in an attempt to bring the study of space, as well as an understanding of the vastness of the universe to the common man, especially the children of the 70's and 80's.
Additionally, I recently watched the HBO special called Questioning Darwin which included interviews from scientists defending evolution, as well as discussions with people who believe in the bible as scientific fact.

The 50's science fiction movie made me think about how far our technology has come. While we have not landed a man on Mars, we did make it to the moon. More importantly, the advances in communication, whether it be via cell phones, the internet, twitter or the other various social media, have changed our world in ways we are still coping with and understanding. The Carl Sagan piece made me think how upset Sagan would be at the state of science in America today. From climate change deniers to bible-as-science-fact supporters there seems to be an attack on the research and accomplishments of science. The HBO series about Darwin made me wonder if those who would take us back to the 1800's as regards to evolution, are as willing to do the same in the area of communication and medicine. Do those who believe the bible is a science book, eschew cell phones and computers because they are not in the bible? Do they seek cures for cancer and heart disease in Genesis as well or seek out the best medical advice of the day?

Fortunately, I watched the second part of the new Cosmos series last night. The new host, a man with a clear and personal memory of Carl Sagan's passion for science, presented a wonderful defense of evolution as fact. The episode made me think that Sagan would have been proud of this episode, and that I was wrong it my initial thought that Carl would be demoralized at the attacks of science. He would have doubled his efforts! And perhaps he wouldn't have waited so long to do it.

The beauty of the evolution episode of the new Cosmos hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, is that it presented the theory of evolution, not as a replacement for those who believe in the Genesis story, but as an updated version of that story. Just as we might tell a young child that the stork brings babies until they are old enough to understand the biology of conception, the Genesis story attempts to explain to mankind not "old" enough to understand the true story of the beginning. It is a story created to simplify the complexity and the mystery of the universe to a people that could not fathom the discoveries that science, the scientific method and the telescope would provide us today.

One night late in 1979, an itinerant young physicist named Alan Guth, with a new son and a year’s appointment at Stanford, stayed up late with his notebook and equations, venturing far beyond the world of known physics.

He was trying to understand why there was no trace of some exotic particles that should have been created in the Big Bang. Instead he discovered what might have made the universe bang to begin with. A potential hitch in the presumed course of cosmic evolution could have infused space itself with a special energy that exerted a repulsive force, causing the universe to swell faster than the speed of light for a prodigiously violent instant.

If true, the rapid engorgement would solve paradoxes like why the heavens look uniform from pole to pole and not like a jagged, warped mess. The enormous ballooning would iron out all the wrinkles and irregularities. Those particles were not missing, but would be diluted beyond detection, like spit in the ocean.

“SPECTACULAR REALIZATION,” Dr. Guth wrote across the top of the page and drew a double box around it.

On Monday, Dr. Guth’s starship came in. Radio astronomers reported that they had seen the beginning of the Big Bang, and that his hypothesis, known undramatically as inflation, looked right.

 

“There is an open question on the extent to which light terrain is formed by cryovolcanic flooding of dark material with brighter ice versus tectonic destruction of preexisting surface features and exposure of brighter subsurface ice in fault scarps; it is certainly possible that both of these processes play important roles in the formation of light materials.”