Samir Okasha (Nature 467, 653–655; 2010) deplores the dispute triggered by the latest broadside against inclusive-fitness theory (Nature 466, 1057–1062; 2010). But his concerns that it could threaten research funding and provide ammunition for creationists should not be allowed to mute scientific debate.

I do not impute that Okasha wants scientists to be swayed from their research by such secondary policy issues. Rather, he seems to believe that the debate itself is about secondary points, claiming that the central question — how altruism evolved — was answered decades ago, and that researchers should stick to existing theoretical frameworks unless there is good reason to invent new ones.

Inclusive-fitness theory, however, is full of pitfalls. This is not just the view of a handful of rebels. It is the considered opinion of some of the foremost proponents of inclusive fitness: Alan Grafen, for example, says that there is reason to think inclusive fitness “is not fully and logically established” (A. Grafen Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 3135–3141; 2009). Others may be forgiven for seeking an alternative approach.