Genes, Misc

The teleosemantic theory of representational content is held by some philosophers to imply that genes carry semantic information about whole-organism phenotypes. In this paper, I argue that this position is not supported by empirical findings. I focus on one of the most elaborate defenses of this position: Shea’s view that genes represent whole-organism phenotypes. I distinguish between two ways of individuating genes in contemporary biological science as possible vehicles of representational content—as molecular genes and as difference-maker genes. I show that (...) given either of these ways of individuating genes, genes fail to meet conditions which the teleosemantic theory requires an entity to meet if that entity is to qualify as a representational vehicle that represents a whole-organism phenotype. The considerations I present against Shea’s view generalize to other attempts to use the teleosemantic theory in support of the claim that genes represent whole-organism phenotypes. (shrink)

In the last few years, the lack of a unitary notion of gene across biological sciences has troubled the philosophy of biology community. However, the debate on this concept has remained largely historical or focused on particular cases presented by the scientific empirical advancements. Moreover, in the literature there are no explicit and reasonable arguments about why a philosophical clarification of the concept of gene is needed. In our paper, we claim that a philosophical clarification of the concept of gene (...) does not contribute to biology. Unlike the question, for example, “What is a biological function?”, we argue that the question “What is a gene?” could be answered by means of empirical research, in the sense that biologists' labour is enough to shed light on it. (shrink)

The purpose of this analysis is to widen and clarify the debate which arose during the last years around granting patents (and other ownership rights) upon different methods and mechanisms of manipulating and engineering life. In doing so, I draw a limited, prima facie argument against many sorts of entitlements or granting rights to those capable of manipulating life at its core level. The general tendency nowadays is to put pressure on the institutional setting in order to accept and promote (...) the manipulation of life as a novel discovery and invention, i.e. to grant patents. I will argue why this is not only socially risky, but also morally doubtful. (shrink)

This paper applies the conceptual toolkit of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (evo‐devo) to the evolution of the genome and the role of the genome in organism development. This challenges both the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, the dominant view in evolutionary theory for much of the 20th century, and the typically unreflective analysis of heredity by evo‐devo. First, the history of the marginalization of applying system‐thinking to the genome is described. Next, the suggested framework is presented. Finally, its application to the evolution of (...) genome modularity, the evolution of induced mutations, the junk DNA versus ENCODE debate, the role of drift in genome evolution, and the relationship between genome dynamics and symbiosis with microorganisms are briefly discussed. (shrink)

Philosophy of Science, 73 (April 2006) pp. 247–257. 0031-8248/2006/7302-0007$10.00 Copyright 2006 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved. 247 BOOK REVIEWS Lenny Moss, What Genes Can’t Do . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2004), 256 pp., $21.00 (paper). Many philosophers of science will have encountered the core distinction between two different gene concepts found in What Genes Can’t Do . Moss argues that contemporary uses of the term ‘gene’ that denote an infor- mation bearing entity result from the conflation (...) of two concepts (‘Gene- P’ and ‘Gene-D’). These concepts arise out of distinct trajectories in the history of biology (preformation and epigenesis, respectively) but are glued together by the rhetoric of linguistic and textual metaphors (e.g., blueprints and programs). Gene-P picks out an instrumentalist use of ‘gene’ as phenotypic indicator or predictor, whereas Gene-D refers to DNA sequences as developmental template resources for RNA and pro- tein products that play variegated cellular roles in the production of many, distinct phenotypes. A number of critical responses to the distinction are now extant in the literature, but my aim is to answer a different question. Why should philosophers of science who have not read the book be interested in it (besides the fact that it is now available in paperback)? The answer is found at the level of methodology and is relevant to crit- icisms of Moss’s distinction. (shrink)