 Philosophers have suggested three ways to avoid future iterations of the nature versus nurture debate. First, revisionist proposals aim to restrict the definition of “innate” to a subset of the i-properties outlined by Mameli and Bateson (see Section 2.4).  Perhaps if scientists converge on a single meaning, problems associated with equivocation will decrease, and psychology generally will undergo conceptual progress. Second, eliminativist proposals argue that while conceptual revision sounds like a nice idea it is unlikely to succeed. A more practical approach, eliminitivists suggest, is to discard innatness as a serious scientific construct. A third strategy, outlined by Cowie (2009) is to do nothing. Vagueness around the innate acquired distinction has caused, on her view, no inhibition to scientific progress. In this section we review some recent revisionist proposals, attempts to establish a single, clear definition. Eliminativism and the “do nothing” proposals are considered in Section 3.5.