Slightly modified excerpt from the section 13.4 Zusammenfassung und Ausblick (translated into englisch): This chapter is based on an analysis of ethical debates on epigenetics and genome editing, debates, in which ethical arguments relating to future generations and justice play a central role. The analysis aims to contextualize new developments in genetic engineering, such as genome and epigenome editing, ethically. At the beginning, the assumptions of "genetic determinism," on which "genetic essentialism" is based, of "epigenetic determinism" as well as "genetic" (...) and "epigenetic exceptionalism" are analyzed and critically discussed. The remarks on the ethical discourse on epigenetics show that the notion of "epigenetic determinism" can sometimes be discerned not only in popular scientific discourse but also in ethical discourse. Ethical debates on epigenetics, however, have distanced themselves from this deterministic understanding. As a result, the focus in the ethical discourse on epigenetics shifts from responsibility for one's own health and that of subsequent generations to justice. What is meant here is justice, for example, in terms of access to healthy environmental conditions, regardless of whether these contribute to health with or without epigenetic agency. An analysis of the discourse on genome editing reveals that it is primarily germline interventions that are being ethically examined, with a concentration on the aspect of inheritance. The question is whether this is accompanied by an implicit "genetic determinism" or even a "genetic essentialism": the determinism could lie in the centrality of the aspect of heritability, since only genetic information is inherited. Does the aspect of heritability and genome modification play a more decisive role in debates on genome editing than the safety issue? Is the problem of embryos and their potential offspring not being able to consent to germline intervention given such a high priority because it is a genetic intervention? Under such a premise of "strong genetic determinism" supplemented by "epigenetic determinism," not only genome editing but also epigenome editing would be ethically relevant precisely because it too would have an influence on the genome. How this influence of genome editing and epigenome editing is ethically evaluated in each case therefore depends initially on whether the assumptions of "genetic" and "epigenetic determinism" are advocated. These assumptions are increasingly viewed critically in ethical discourse because they cannot be confirmed from a scientific perspective. In popular scientific debates in particular, however, they seem to persist, which ultimately also influences the public discussion. Since a broad public discussion is required especially on genome editing, a reflective approach to the various "-isms" analyzed in this chapter is central. DOI: 10.5771/9783748927242. (shrink)

Discussions on the concept of Marifatullah as the foundation of belief hold a significant place in theology. There are different opinions among schools of theology regarding whether those who do not receive divine messages must know God. The majority of scholars belonging to the Mu'tazila and Māturīdī schools, including Imam Māturīdī, state that human beings must know God. Although al-Ashʿarī accepts that the most prominent obligatory duties are the methods of reasoning that lead to marifatullah, he states that responsibility in (...) this matter is formed by transmission. However, we can say that whether the human mind is sufficient to reach the knowledge of God, the method of reasoning has reached a different dimension today from the sciences of psychology, genetics, and neurobiology. This study explored whether individuals can achieve marifatullah from a holistic perspective. Whether human beings can be held responsible for this issue has been evaluated through the sciences of psychology, genetics, and neurobiology, and the opinions of schools of theology on this issue have been criticized. When we think in terms of Marifatullah, we can say that man’s psychological sense of obligation to adapt to society leaves him intellectually under the influence of society. In terms of genetic determinism, human personality, behavior, and intellectual adventure are completely determined by genes. Therefore, it is impossible for men to reach marifatullah in the context of their mental abilities. From an epigenetic perspective, we see that human thought structure, behavior, and personality are formed as a result of interactions with the environment. Serious hesitation arises in this idea in terms of intellect being a source of responsibility. Humans are genetically influenced by the environment and society, and they have a suitable nature for this, revealing that their genetic structure is open to environmental influences. In terms of brain plasticity, factors such as the society, environment, and family in which people live can change their brains and enable them to live accordingly. Although life adventures appear to be within the framework of social harmony, there must also be intellectual and religious harmony within social harmony. This reinforces the idea that individuals tend to align more with the thoughts and beliefs instilled by culture given the adaptable nature of the human brain influenced by cultural factors. When the views of the schools of theology are considered considering these evaluations, it becomes clear that the Mu'tazilites and Māturīdīs' belief that the source of the wujūb of marifatullah is intellect is at a point that needs to be reconsidered in terms of human biology and psychology. Although the Asharites emphasize human beings attaining knowledge of God through intellect, their focus on prophethood indicates that a revelation offer appears more accurate concerning human nature in the context of Marifatullah. (shrink)

Yakın zamana kadar dominant olan Newtoncu doğa anlayışı doğa bilimlerindeki gelişmelerle ciddi olarak eleştirilmeye başlanmıştır. Hiç kuşku yok ki bu eleştirel dönüşüm sürecinin başlangıcında Einstein ve Schrödinger fiziği vardır. Buna bağlı olarak biyolojide geçtiğimiz yüzyılın başından günümüze kadar gerçekleşen gelişmeler (evrimsel biyoloji, genetik, epigenetik, moleküler biyoloji, gelişim biyolojisi, ekoloji, fizyoloji konularıyla ilgili değişim ve gelişimler) biyolojinin temel kavramları olan fenom, genom ve çevre’deki değişimleri de içermektedir. Yeni bir doğa kavrayışını da beraberinde getiren bu süreçte biyoloji, bize canlıların çevreleriyle sınırları (...) net olmayan ve kompleks etkileşimleri üzerinden kendilerini dinamik bir halde sürekli olarak organize eden sistemler olduğunu söylemektedir. Canlıların, değişimini gözlemleyebileceğimiz kadar hızlı olan özellikleri de uzun süreler boyunca stabil halde gözlemlediğimiz özellikleri de süreçlerden oluşmaktadır. Canlılara ait tüm özellikler (fenomlar ve genomlar) kompleks bir ağ oluşturan diğer akışlarla etkileşimleri içinde akmaktadır. Bu yüzden, bir fenotipik özelliği etraflıca açıklama iddiasıyla yola çıkılıp, buna rağmen araştırmanın ve sonucundaki açıklamanın tek yönlü (sadece tek bir tür parametreyi dikkate alarak ve bir parametreye özellikle yoğun vurgu yaparak) yapılması sorunludur. Çünkü fenom, ancak bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ve fenom oluşumunun kompleksite ve dinamizm özelliklerinin farkında olarak etraflıca açıklanabilir. Bir fenotipik özelliğin etraflıca açıklanması iddiasının olmadığı durumlarda (ki standart bir biyoloji araştırması çoğunlukla bu iddiada değildir), sadece bir parametre dikkate alınabilir ve bu durum son derece anlaşılırdır. Bilim insanları her durumda (fenotipik özelliği hem etraflıca inceleme hem de tek bir parametreyle etkileşimini inceleme durumlarında) fenom oluşumunun kompleksite ve dinamizm özelliklerinin farkında olmalıdırlar ve açıklamaları da araştırma süreçleri de bu farkındalığı içermelidir. Burada araştırmacının zihnini belirleyen soru şudur: doğa bütünsel, stabil ve mekanik nedenselliğin egemen olduğu bir varlıklar alanı mıdır yoksa parçaların birbirleriyle sürekli etkileşerek yeni uyumlar ve ilişkiler geliştirdiği karmaşık ve akışkan varlıklar topluluğu mudur? Bu soruya karmaşıklık, akışkanlık, karşılıklı etkileşim ve uyum üzerinden cevap verilirse üzerine odaklanılacak olan kavram ne varlık ne fenomen, fakat süreçtir. Nitekim süreç felsefesi, biyolojideki felsefi problemler ve kavramsal incelemeler için çok kullanışlıdır. Bu durumun iki temel nedeni: 1) biyolojinin konusu olan şeylerin temel olarak süreçler olması ve 2) bilim insanlarının araştırmaları sırasında süreçler üzerinden akıl yürütmeleri ve bu yolla kavramları kullanmaları, açıklamalara, bilgiye ulaşmalarıdır. Bu çalışma, bu iki temel unsuru göz önünde bulundurarak ortaya çıkan yeni biyolojinin beraberinde getirdiği ve yeni imkanlar sunan yeni bir doğa anlayışına odaklanmıştır. Bu yeni doğa anlayışı, mekanik ve statik olmaktan ziyade kendi içinde stabil ama bütünüyle dinamik doğa anlayışıdır. (shrink)

Gene gelten im Allgemeinen als die Essenz eines Lebewesens, die all seine charakteristischen Eigenschaften bestimmt. Aus biologischer Sicht trifft diese Vorstellung jedoch längst nicht mehr zu. Im Mittelpunkt dieses Buches steht daher die Frage, warum und wie das essentialistische Denken die gesellschaftliche Wahrnehmung biologischer Forschungsprojekte immer noch beeinflusst. Anhand aktueller Erkenntnisse der Genetik und Epigenetik geht Kirsten Schmidt auf die Suche nach einer neuen Interpretation des Genbegriffs im Zeitalter der Postgenomik. Das Verständnis von Genen als dynamischen Prozessen erweist sich (...) dabei als eine fruchtbare Alternative zum Essentialismus. (shrink)

On ‘Mismatch’ and ‘Metabolic Ghettos:’ The Conceptualization of Global Health Differences in Research on the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease. Epigenetic approaches to human health have received growing attention in the past two decades. They allow to view the development of human organisms as plastic, i.e. as open to influences from the social and material environment such as nutrition, stress, and trauma. This has lent new credence to approaches in biomedicine that aim to draw attention to the importance of (...) development for later life health. Some scholars in the social sciences and humanities have welcomed such approaches as a departure from gene‐centric perspectives and as an opportunity for highlighting the social and political determinants of health and illness. Others have warned that they might lead to new forms of biological reductionisms and determinisms. In this article, we explore how research on developmental plasticity addresses and articulates global health disparities, specifically in the context of postcolonial India. We discuss two prominent approaches from the field of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) that build on epigenetic perspectives on health and illness and view different global rates of disease susceptibility as the result of developmental processes: first, the ‘mismatch paradigm’ by Peter Gluckman and Mark Hanson and second, the ‘metabolic ghetto’ concept by Jonathan Wells. We highlight how both approaches render historical and social factors meaningful for the development of global health disparities, but emphasize how they at the same time remain prone to determinisms and reductionisms reminiscent of a gene‐centric perspective. DOHaD actors themselves are critical of these tendencies, and in conclusion we explore novel opportunities for interdisciplinary collaborations enabled by this critical potential. (shrink)