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

SES 0217567代表基因：当代分子生物学中基因概念的相互竞争的哲学分析Paul Griffiths，University of Bennett生物学的历史学家和哲学家普遍认为基因概念不仅是“模糊的”或“灵活的”，而是不同领域的生物学家以一种或多种反映他们研究实践的特定方式来构思“基因”一词。 科学哲学家和历史学家对基因概念在生物学家中如何以及为什么会发生变化提出了各种主张，并认为这种变化对于生物学研究的实际进行来说要么是功能性的，要么是功能失调的。 PI先前的研究已经确定，该领域的声明可以通过对从工作生物学家那里获得的问卷数据进行统计分析来操作和测试。 本研究的目的是与生物学历史和哲学领域的主要研究人员合作，并在其他领域具有相关方法学专业知识的研究人员的帮助下，构建关于当代生物学家群体如何思考基因的哲学主张的可测试版本，并测试这些主张。 这项研究的目的不是要得出一个或多个正确的基因“定义”，而是要绘制出基因概念的变化，并探索其原因和影响。该项目首先举办一个讲习班，参加者包括生物学历史和哲学方面的主要研究人员以及在相关生物学领域和社会科学研究方面具有专门知识的其他人员。 研讨会的目的是就研究问题和操作达成一致意见。随后进行受试者招募、数据收集和数据分析。项目结束时的第二个讲习班是讨论成果，并计划由讲习班参与者针对几个不同的目标受众进行几次重叠的合作，以出版物。虽然生物学家都知道，“基因”一词在不同的领域意味着不同的东西，但外部世界却留下了来自不同生物学家的声明，这些声明似乎在讨论同一件事，而事实上，这些声明的有效性取决于每个生物学家所持有的特定基因概念。 因此，关键的法律和政策决定可能是基于错误的公众，立法者和决策者的概念，他们应该重视这些声明。 该项目可以通过强调这一情况做出重大贡献。

SES 0217567 Representing Genes: Testing Competing Philosophical Analyses of the Gene Concept in Contemporary Molecular BiologyPaul Griffiths, University of PittsburghThere 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 ofphilosophical 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.