Abstract
Developmental biologists can perform studies that describe a phenomenon (descriptive work) and/or explain how the phenomenon works (mechanistic work). There is a prevalent perception that molecular/genetic explanations achieved via perturbations of gene function are the primary means of advancing mechanistic knowledge. We believe this to be a limited perspective, one that does not effectively represent the breadth of work in our field. We surveyed a representative and diverse group of colleagues to share their views on what it takes to infer mechanism. Here, we briefly examine the factors that have shaped the dominant view of mechanism, summarize responses to the survey, present our views, and suggest a path forward that embraces a broad outlook on the diversity of studies that advance knowledge in our field.