There's a slightly embarrassing paper out in Nature last week with E.O. Wilson on the list of authors that disparages inclusive fitness (the logic behind kin selection) and insists that (a) its explanatory power and contributions to evolutionary biology have been limited and (b) it can be ditched outright in favor of "standard natural selection theory". What is meant by this last phrase is not entirely clear, but what is clear is that the authors do not understand inclusive fitness and have completely overlooked the many ways in which it has illuminated us (sex ratio adjustment as the prime example). The authors have a section titled "Rise and fall of inclusive fitness theory", which is curious unless they are writing alt history fiction.John Hawks agrees:
I am only going to comment briefly on the paper, because Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have already chewed it up.
The weird part of the paper is the way it describes inclusive fitness as some kind of theoretical afterthought, useful only as an ad hoc explanation for eusocial insects. It contrasts the inclusive fitness concept with "standard natural selection" as if it were possible for organisms to erase the fact that they're related to each other! And the authors imply that they have fatally damaged the concept of kin selection.
It's so contrary to evolutionary theory, that I thought maybe I was missing something. But I've been spending time on another problem this week and haven't had time to follow it up.