Representing Genes: Testing Competing Philosophical Analyses of the Gene Concept in Contemporary Molecular Biology

University Of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA

Investigators

Abstract

SES 0217567 Representing Genes: Testing Competing Philosophical Analyses of the Gene Concept in Contemporary Molecular Biology Paul Griffiths, University of Pittsburgh There is widespread agreement amongst historians and philosophers of biology that the gene concept is not merely "vague" or "flexible," but rather that biologists in different fields conceive of the term "gene" in one or more specific ways that reflect their research practice. Philosophers and historians of science have made various claims about precisely how and why the gene concept varies amongst biologists and have argued that the variation is either functional or dysfunctional with respect to the actual conduct of biological research. Previous research by the PI has established that claims in this field can be operationalized and tested by statistical analysis of questionnaire data obtained from working biologists. The objective of this study is to construct, in cooperation with leading researchers in the history and philosophy of biology and with the help of researchers in other fields with relevant methodological expertise, testable versions of philosophical claims about how groups of contemporary biologists think about genes, and to test those claims. The purpose of the study is not to arrive at one or more correct "definitions" of the gene, but rather to map out the variation in the gene concept and to explore its causes and its effects. The project begins with a workshop of leading researchers in history and philosophy of biology and others with expertise in the relevant biological fields and in social scientific research. The aim of the workshop is to agree on research questions and operationalizations. It is to be followed by subject recruitment, data collection, and data analysis. A second workshop at the end of the project is to discuss the results and to plan publications by several overlapping collaborations of workshop participants aimed at several different target audiences. Among the many impacts of this project, one potential broader impact stands out. Although biologists are aware that the term "gene" means different things in different fields, the outside world is left with statements from different biologists that appear to be discussing the same thing, while the validity of those statements, in fact, depends on the specific gene concept held by the individual biologist. Thus, crucial law and policy decisions may be made based on faulty public, lawmaker, and policymaker notions of what import they should attach to these statements. The project can make a significant contribution by highlighting this circumstance.