20 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Where the social meets the biological: new ontologies of biosocial race
In recent years, postgenomic research, and the fields of epigenetics and microbiome science in particular, have described novel ways in which social processes of racialization can become embodied and result in physiological and health-related racial difference. This new conception of biosocial race has important implications for philosophical debates on the ontology of race. We argue that postgenomic research on race exhibits two key biases in the way that racial schemas are deployed. Firstly, although the ‘new biosocial race’ has been characterized as social race entering into biological processes, it is only particular aspects of social race that are taken to cross the biosocial boundary, resulting in a distorted view of the social component of biosocial race. Secondly, racial categories are assumed to be stable across time and space. This assumption is epistemically limiting, as well as indicating a reliance on a fixed racial ontology. However, the causal pathways for the embodiment of social race, and the different possible modes of embodiment, that postgenomic science is uncovering themselves present a challenge for fixed or static racial ontologies. Given these tensions, we argue that the emerging picture of a shifting landscape of entanglement between the social and the biological requires us to increase the complexity of our ontologies of race, or even embrace a deflationary metaphysics of race
The Organism in Evolutionary Explanation: From Early 20th Century to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
In recent years there have been a number of calls for integrating developmental and organismal phenomena into evolutionary theory. This so-called Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) argues that evolutionary theory should not primarily explain certain evolutionary phenomena by highlighting genes and populations but organisms instead, in particular how their development and behavior biases and drives evolutionary change. Here, we offer a new historiography that focuses less on the differences between the EES and the Modern Synthesis, but seeks to provide a better understanding about which theoretical and explanatory traditions the organism-centered framework of the EES draws on. This concerns especially three currently resurfacing explanatory roles granted to organisms in evolution: organisms should allow (1) contextualizing parts in development, especially genes, (2) focusing on reciprocal organism-environment relations (in contrast to, e.g., gene-environment interactions), and (3) understand the role of agency in evolution. Through this analysis, we show that the EES advances a revival of older explanatory roles granted to the organism in evolutionary research, which became marginalized in the second half of the 20th century. This new perspective helps to re-center contemporary theoretical debates towards relevant questions of explanatory standards in evolutionary biology
Causal explanation beyond the gene: manipulation and causality in epigenetics
This paper deals with the interrelationship between causal explanation and methodology in a relatively
young discipline in biology: epigenetics. Based on cases from molecular and ecological epigenetics, I show
that James Woodward’s interventionist account of causation captures essential features about how epigeneticists
using highly diverse methods, i.e. laboratory experiments and purely observational studies, think
about causal explanation. I argue that interventionism thus qualifies as a useful unifying explanatory approach
when it comes to cross-methodological research efforts. It can act as a guiding rationale (i) to link
causal models in molecular biology with statistical models derived from observational data analysis and (ii)
to identify test-criteria for reciprocal transparent studies in different fields of research, which is a shared issue across the sciences.
Este artÃculo trata de la relación entre explicaciones causales y metodologÃa en una disciplina biológica relativamente
joven, la epigenética. Basándome en casos de la epigenética molecular y ecológica, muestro que
la concepción intervencionista de la causalidad desarrollada por James Woodward capta algunos rasgos
esenciales del modo en que los epigenetistas conciben la explicación causal usando métodos sumamente diversos:
e.g., experimentos de laboratorio o estudios observacionales. Defiendo que el intervencionismo es
útil como aproximación unificadora a la explicación cuando se trata de empresas investigadoras transdisciplinares.
Puede servir como guÃa para (i) conectar los modelos causales en biologÃa molecular con los modelos
estadÃsticos derivados del análisis de datos observacionales y (ii) para identificar criterios de prueba
para estudios recÃprocos en diferentes ámbitos de investigación, un problema de interés común en diferentes
ciencias
Georg Toepfer: Historisches Wörterbuch der Biologie. Geschichte und Theorie der Biologischen Grundbegriffe
Publisher Correction to: O Organism, Where Art Thou? Old and New Challenges for Organism-Centered Biology
What’s wrong with evolutionary causation?
This review essay reflects on recent discussions in evolutionary biology and philosophy of science on the central causes of evolution and the structure of causal explanations in evolutionary theory. In this debate, it has been argued that our view of evolutionary causation should be rethought by including more seriously developmental causes and causes of the individual acting organism. I use Tobias Uller’s and Kevin Laland’s volume as well as recent reviews of it as a starting point to reflect on the causal role of agency, individuality, and the environment in evolution. In addition, I critically discuss classical philosophical frameworks of theory change (i.e. Popper’s, Kuhn’s and Lakatos’) used in this debate to understand changing views of evolutionary causation
Does the human microbiome tell us something about race?
This paper critically discusses the increasing trend in human microbiome research to draw on the concept of race. This refers to the attempt to investigate the microbial profile of certain social and ethnic groups as embodied racial traits. Here, race is treated as a necessary category that helps in identifying and solving health challenges, like obesity and type-2 diabetes, in ‘western’ or indigenous populations with particular microbial characteristics. We are skeptical of this new environmentalist trend to racialize human bodies due to two reasons: (i) These race studies repeat outdated historical narratives, which link especially nutrition and race in ways that are prone to stir stereotypical and exclusionary views on indigenous groups. (ii) The concept of biological race used here is taxonomically problematic and conceptually inconsistent. It leads to a view in which human races are constituted by other non-human species. In addition, this approach cannot group biological individuals into human races and decouples races from ancestry. To support this critique, we draw on case studies of microbiome research on indigenous groups in Latin America.</p
Unknotting reciprocal causation between organism and environment
In recent years, biologists and philosophers of science have argued that evolutionary theory should incorporate more seriously the idea of ‘reciprocal causation.’ This notion refers to feedback loops whereby organisms change their experiences of the environment or alter the physical properties of their surroundings. In these loops, in particular niche constructing activities are central, since they may alter selection pressures acting on organisms, and thus affect their evolutionary trajectories. This paper discusses long-standing problems that emerge when studying such reciprocal causal processes between organisms and environments. By comparing past approaches to reciprocal causation from the early twentieth century with contemporary ones in niche construction theory, we identify two central reoccurring problems: All of these approaches have not been able to provide a conceptual framework that allows (i) maintaining meaningful boundaries between organisms and environments, instead of merging the two, and (ii) integrating experiential and physical kinds of reciprocal causation. By building on case studies of niche construction research, we provide a model that is able to solve these two problems. It allows distinguishing between mutually interacting organisms and environments in complex scenarios, as well as integrating various forms of experiential and physical niche construction