Sir, the aetiology of malocclusion in modern human populations remains an intriguing, complex and important facet of both academic and clinical areas of interest. It is not the only subject in orthodontics that presents conflicting data, conclusions, and the need for continual updating in response to new knowledge in the applied and basic scientific community within and beyond the dental profession. And certainly not the only compelling subject in orthodontics that deserves serious revisiting in view of the relatively recent paradigm of inculcating evidence-based information in the orthodontic specialty and dental profession at large. Dental editors have a profound and often unappreciated role in identifying such areas that might have far reaching and consequential effects upon individual patient care. Even more difficult is their task of finding capable and willing contributors to any appropriate journalistic or congress formats that might draw enthusiastic interest from our dental colleagues. The demand for no less than a 'debate' on this subject assumes that such a format is currently the most desirable and feasible vehicle of communication for exploration of the role of epigenetic and genetic contributions to malocclusion in modern civilisation. The initial challenge (after appropriate vetting of potential areas of dental interest), therefore, is to avoid unnecessary adversarial and often circus like presentations that discourage participation from interested communities and distracts us from our real purpose as clinicians, educators, researchers, editors, and dental congress programme designers. It is hoped that Dr Mew's letter will serve as a stimulus to the global community of dentistry and orthodontics to more seriously and robustly explore the importance of the aetiology of malocclusion in the formats of dental and orthodontic postgraduate curriculum, research, dental publications, and lecture presentations at our many dental meetings.