History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences最新文献

Abstract

In 1891 Cambridge biologist William Bateson (1861–1926) announced his idea that the symmetrical segmentation in living organisms resulted from energy peaks of some vibratory force acting on tissues during morphogenesis. He also demonstrated topographically how folding a radially symmetric organism could produce another with bilateral symmetry. Bateson attended many lectures at the Cambridge Philosophical Society and viewed mechanical models prepared by eminent physicists that illustrated how vibrations affected materials. In his subsequent research, Bateson utilized analogies and metaphors based upon his observations of nature to build a thought model on the effects of vibrations on living tissue, because he realized that the chemistry and biology of his day lacked technologies to perform actual experiments on the subject. He concluded the production of organic segmentation was both a chemical and mechanical phenomenon. By the time of his death Bateson had incorporated new ideas about embryonic organizer regions to suggest a center from which a rhythmic force emanated and then produced the observed repetitive segmentation as a common feature in living organisms.

This paper critically analyses three main neurobiological hypotheses on trans* identities: the neurobiological theory about the origin of gender dysphoria, the neurodevelopmental cortical hypothesis, and the alternative hypothesis of self-referential thinking and body perception. In this study I focus then the attention on three elements: the issue of (de)pathologisation, the idea of the trans brain, and the aetiology of trans* identities. While the neurobiological theory about the origin of gender dysphoria and the neurodevelopmental cortical hypothesis claim the existence of the trans brain, each offering its own neurobiological depiction, the hypothesis of self-referential thinking and body perception doesn’t postulate a distinctive neurobiological trait for all trans* people. I problematize both portrayals of the trans brain departing from the findings and conceptualizations of the paradigm shifting brain mosaicism. Unlike the hypothesis of self-referential thinking and body perception that keeps the question of causation open, both the neurobiological theory about the origin of gender dysphoria and the neurodevelopmental cortical hypothesis situate the origin of trans* identities in the neurobiological domain. I challenge the biological deterministic framework in which this aetiology is inscribed from a dynamic processual entanglement perspective. Finally, concerning the issue of (de)pathologisation of trans* identities, an evolution can be seen in each of the hypothesis and among them, from the least to the most depathologising. However, I question their complete departure from a pathologising framework.

This paper investigates the reception and discussion of Jakob von Uexküll's biological theory by two German thinkers of his time, Helmuth Plessner and Kurt Goldstein. It demonstrates how their bio-philosophical perspectives are on the one hand indebted to Uexküll's theory and, on the other, critical of its tendency to excessively harmonize the relationship between living beings and their environment. This original critical reading of the Umweltlehre is rooted in ambiguities within Uexküll's own thought - between a dynamic conception of the organism-environment relationship and the idea of "conformity to a plan" -, , which is here examined in the second section. In the third and fourth sections we will then focus on Plessner and Goldstein respectively, demonstrating how for these two authors the harmony between organism and environment is not an original state, but only reveals itself against the background of a tension; as such, it can only be partial, unstable and always changing. The two thinkers avoid the rigid alternative between Darwin's concept of adaptation (Anpassung) and Uexküll's "fitting into" (Einpassung) by theorizing the ideal state of the relationship between organism and environment in terms of "adequacy" (Adäquatheit) and "adaptability" (Adaptiertheit). Between organism and environment there is neither absolute separation nor perfect harmony, but rather a gap which can never be definitively fixed.

There is surprisingly little philosophical work on conceptually spelling out the difference between the traits on which natural selection may be said to act (e.g. "having a high running speed") and mere circumstantial traits (e.g. "happening to be in the path of a forest fire"). I label this issue the "selectable traits problem" and, in this paper, I propose a solution for it. I first show that, contrary to our first intuition, simply equating selectable traits with heritable ones is not an adequate solution. I then go on to argue that two recent philosophical solutions to this problem-due to Peter Godfrey-Smith and Pierrick Bourrat-are unconvincing because they cannot accommodate frequency-dependent selection. The way out of this difficulty is, I argue, to accept that extrinsic properties dependent on relations between intrinsic properties of the population members should also count as selectable traits. I then show that my proposal is legitimized by more than the simple accommodation of frequency-dependent selection.

Scientists aim to remediate artifacts in their experimental datasets. However, the remediation of one artifact can result in another. Why might this happen, and what does this consequence tell us about how we should account for artifacts and their control? In this paper, I explore a case in functional neuroimaging where remediation appears to have caused this problem. I argue that remediation amounts to a change to an experimental arrangement. These changes need not be surgical, and the arrangement need not satisfy the criterion of causal modularity. Thus, remediation can affect more than just the factor responsible for the artifact. However, if researchers can determine the consequences of their remediation, they can make adjustments that control for the present artifact as well as for previously controlled ones. Current philosophical accounts of artifacts and the factors responsible for them cannot adequately address this issue, as they do not account for what is needed for artifact remediation (and specifically correction). I support my argument by paralleling it with ongoing concerns regarding the transparency of complex computational systems, as near future remediation across the experimental life sciences will likely make greater use of AI tools to correct for artifacts.

Participatory and collaborative approaches in sustainability science and public health research contribute to co-producing evidence that can support interventions by involving diverse societal actors that range from individual citizens to entire communities. However, existing philosophical accounts of evidence are not adequate to deal with the kind of evidence generated and used in such approaches. In this paper, we present an account of evidence as clues for action through participatory and collaborative research inspired by philosopher Susan Haack's theory of evidence. Differently from most accounts of evidence for use in policies and interventions, our account combines action-oriented (the how) and actors-oriented (the who) considerations. We build on Haack's theory and on the analysis of examples of participatory and collaborative research in sustainability science and public health research to flesh out six procedural criteria for the generation and mobilization of evidence in and from participatory research. Action-oriented criteria invite to look at evidence from a (a) foundherentist, (b) gradational and (c) quasi-holistic perspective. Actors-oriented criteria point out that evidence generation and utilization are (d) social, (e) personal, and (f) embedded. We suggest that these criteria may reinforce participatory and collaborative approaches to evidence co-production when addressing complex problems in sustainability science and public health allowing for the generation of a kind of practical objectivity.

Walter Bock was committed to developing a framework for evolutionary biology. Bock repeatedly discussed how evolutionary explanations should be considered within the realm of Hempel's deductive-nomological model of scientific explanations. Explanation in evolution would then consist of functional and evolutionary explanations, and within the latter, an explanation can be of nomological-deductive and historical narrative explanations. Thus, a complete evolutionary explanation should include, first, a deductive functional analysis, and then proceed through nomological and historical evolutionary explanations. However, I will argue that his views on the deductive proprieties of functional analysis and the deductive-nomological parts of evolution fail because of the nature of evolution, which contains a historical element that the logic of deduction and Hempel's converting law model do not compass. Conversely, Bock's historical approach gives a critical consideration of the historical narrative element of evolutionary explanation, which is fundamental to the methodology of the historical nature of evolutionary theory. Herein, I will expand and discuss a modern view of evolutionary explanations of traits that includes the currentacknowledgement of the differences between experimental and the historical sciences, including the token and type event dichotomy, that mutually illuminate each other in order to give us a well confirmed and coherent hypothesis for evolutionary explanations. Within this framework, I will argue that the duality of evolutionary explanations is related to two components of character evolution: origin, with its evolutionary pathways along with the history, and maintenance, the function (mainly a current function) for the character being selected.

In the shift from the balance of nature to the flux of nature paradigm, the concept of resilience has gained great traction in ecology. While it has been suggested that the concept of resilience does not imply a genuine departure from the balance of nature paradigm, I shall argue against this stance. To do so, I first show that the balance of nature paradigm and the related conception of a single-state equilibrium relies on what Eliot Sober has named the "Natural State Model (NSM)", suggesting that the NSM has instead been dismissed in the flux of nature paradigm. I then focus on resilience as the main explanatory concept of the flux paradigm. After distinguishing between two main different understandings of "resilience", namely engineering resilience and ecological resilience, I argue that the former is close to the concept of balance or stability and still part of the NSM, while the latter is not. Finally, I claim that ecological resilience is inconsistent with the NSM, concluding that this concept-being incompatible with the NSM-is not part of the balance of nature paradigm but rather a genuinely new explanatory tool.