Analytic philosophy for biomedical research: the imperative of applying yesterday's timeless messages to today's impasses

The mantra that "the best way to predict the future is to invent it" (attributed to the computer scientist Alan Kay) exemplifies some of the expectations from the technical and innovative sides of biomedical research at present. However, for technical advancements to make real impacts both on patient health and genuine scientific understanding, quite a number of lingering challenges facing the entire spectrum from protein biology all the way to randomized controlled trials should start to be overcome. The proposal in this chapter is that philosophy is essential in this process. By reviewing select examples from the history of science and philosophy, disciplines which were indistinguishable until the mid-nineteenth century, I argue that progress toward the many impasses in biomedicine can be achieved by emphasizing theoretical work (in the true sense of the word 'theory') as a vital foundation for experimental biology. Furthermore, a philosophical biology program that could provide a framework for theoretical investigations is outlined

Causal circuit explanations of behavior: Are necessity and sufficiency necessary and sufficient?

In the current advent of technological innovation allowing for precise neural manipulations and copious data collection, it is hardly questioned that the explanation of behavioral processes is to be chiefly found in neural circuits. Such belief, rooted in the exhausted dualism of cause and effect, is enacted by a methodology that promotes “necessity and sufficiency” claims as the goal-standard in neuroscience, thus instructing young students on what shall reckon as explanation. Here we wish to deconstruct and explicate the difference between what is done, what is said, and what is meant by such causal circuit explanations of behavior. Well-known to most philosophers, yet ignored or at least hardly ever made explicit by neuroscientists, the original grand claim of “understanding the brain” is imperceptibly substituted by the methodologically sophisticated task of empirically establishing counterfactual dependencies. But for the 21st century neuroscientist, after so much pride, this is really an excess of humility. I argue that to upgrade intervention to explanation is prone to logical fallacies, interpretational leaps and carries a weak explanatory force, thus settling and maintaining low standards for intelligibility in neuroscience. To claim that behavior is explained by a “necessary and sufficient” neural circuit is, at best, misleading. In that, my critique (rather than criticism) is indeed mainly negative. Positively, I briefly suggest some available alternatives for conceptual progress, such as adopting circular causality (rather than lineal causality in the flavor of top-down reductionism), searching for principles of behavior(rather than taking an arbitrary definition of behavior and rushing to dissect its “underlying” neural mechanisms), and embracing process philosophy (rather than substance-mechanistic ontologies). Overall, if the goal of neuroscience is to understand the relation between brain and behavior then, in addition to excruciating neural studies (one pillar), we will need a strong theory of behavior (the other pillar) and a solid foundation to establish their relation (the bridge)

OBJECTS OF MY AFFECTION: A LARGE COMPANY, SOCIAL INNOVATION, AND THE LOCAL MARKET

The increasing complexity of markets and social contexts need highly educated professionals to face contemporary challenges. They involve different scale of problems and stakeholders and push academies to restructure their traditional educational offer, redefining their boundaries towards the external ecosystem in search for more sustainable, social and economic paradigms, opening up novel knowledge synergies. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the potential of design approaches and knowledge to transform businesses and generate innovation. The triadic relationship creativity-innovation-design is still forming and requires a broader and deeper understanding as well as clearly defined metrics. This book is a result of a Pan-European Tempus project – IDEA, led by the Innovation Center ACT Shenkar and supported by the European Commission 2012-2016. The project researched the topics of design-driven innovation as well as industry-academy collaboration as two essential drivers for innovation in the twenty-first century. It brings together an array of 26 experts including design researchers and educators, industrial companies, scientists and engineers from all disciplines, as well as technology transfer companies and public institutions that promote policy in the industrial and educational sectors. The authors of the different chapters took upon themselves the task of advancing a cross-sector and Pan-European discussion on the evolution of design and the way it feeds new ideas that turn into new products and services that can transform the world. It also explores the added value brought by interdisciplinary design-driven research and education for the development of a social environment that fosters innovation and creativity in Israel, in Europe and worldwide