Skip to main content
Log in

On Gene’s Action and Reciprocal Causation

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advancing the reductionist conviction that biology must be in agreement with the assumptions of reductive physicalism (the upward hierarchy of causal powers, the upward fixing of facts concerning biological levels) A. Rosenberg argues that downward causation is ontologically incoherent and that it comes into play only when we are ignorant of the details of biological phenomena. Moreover, in his view, a careful look at relevant details of biological explanations will reveal the basic molecular level that characterizes biological systems, defined by wholly physical properties, e.g., geometrical structures of molecular aggregates (cells). In response, we argue that contrary to his expectations one cannot infer reductionist assumptions even from detailed biological explanations that invoke the molecular level, as interlevel causal reciprocity is essential to these explanations. Recent very detailed explanations that concern the structure and function of chromatin—the intricacies of supposedly basic molecular level—demonstrate this. They show that what seem to be basic physical parameters extend into a more general biological context, thus rendering elusive the concepts of the basic level and causal hierarchy postulated by the reductionists. In fact, relevant phenomena are defined across levels by entangled, extended parameters. Nor can the biological context be explained away by basic physical parameters defining molecular level shaped by evolution as a physical process. Reductionists claim otherwise only because they overlook the evolutionary significance of initial conditions best defined in terms of extended biological parameters. Perhaps the reductionist assumptions (as well as assumptions that postulate any particular levels as causally fundamental) cannot be inferred from biological explanations because biology aims at manipulating organisms rather than producing explanations that meet the coherence requirements of general ontological models. Or possibly the assumptions of an ontology not based on the concept of causal powers stratified across levels can be inferred from biological explanations. The incoherence of downward causation is inevitable, given reductionist assumptions, but an ontological alternative might avoid this. We outline desiderata for the treatment of levels and properties that realize interlevel causation in such an ontology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailly F., Longo G. (2006) La singularité physique du vivant. Hermann, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailly F., Longo G. (2008) Extended critical situations. Journal of Biological Systems 6(2): 309–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailly F., Longo G. (2009) Biological organisation and anti-entropy. Journal of Biological Systems 17(1): 1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogerd F. et al (2005) Emergence and its place in nature: A case study of biochemical networks. Synthese 145(2): 131–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge M. (2003) Emergence and convergence. Toronto University Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Counillon L., Pouyssegur J. (2000) The expanding family of eukaryotic Na+/H+ exchangers. Journal of Biological Chemistry 275: 1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. H. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication. (Vol. 2). London: John Murray.

  • Dennett, D. (1996). Darwin’s dangerous idea. Simon & Schuster.

  • Frankel J. (1989) Pattern formation: Ciliate studies and models. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, J. (2000). Cell polarity in ciliates. In D. Drubin (Ed.), Cell polarity (pp. 78–105).

  • Hattiangadi J. (2005) The mind as an object of scientific study. In: Erneling E.C., Johnson D.M. (eds) Mind as a scientific object. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E., Lamb M. J. (2008) The epigenome in evolution: Beyond the Modern Synthesis. Vogis Herald 12: 242–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J. (1993) Supervenience and mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J. (1998) Philosophy of mind. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J. (1999) Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies 95: 3–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J. (2005) Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P. (1984) 1953 and all that. A tale of two sciences. Philosophical Review 93: 335–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krick, F. (1958). Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 12, 138–63.

  • Lesne A. (1998) Renormalization methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesne A., Victor J. M. (2006) Chromatin fiber functional organization: Some plausible models. The European Physical Journal E 19: 279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesne A. (2008) Robustness: Confronting lessons from physics and biology. Biological Reviews 83: 509–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (2000). Causation as influence. The Journal of Philosophy, 182–197

  • Monod J. (1970) Le hasard et la nécessité. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Morange M. (2003) La vie expliquée?. O. Jacob, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan L. (1923) Emergent evolution. Williams and Norgate, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossio M., Longo G., Stewart J. (2009) Computability of closure to efficient causation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 257(3): 489–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble D. (2006) The music of life. Biology beyond the genome. Hardback, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine I. (1969) Symmetry breaking instabilities in biological systems. Nature 223: 913–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine I., Stengers I. (1979) La Nouvelle alliance. Gallimard, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A., Kaplan D. M. (2005) How to reconcile Physicalism and Antireductionism about Biology. Philosophy of Science 72: 43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A. (2006) Is epigenetic inheritance a counterexample to the central dogma?. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 28: 549–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Simondon G. (1964) L’individu et sa genèse physico-biologique. Puf, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Tost, J. (2009). DNA methylation: An introduction to the biology and the disease-associated changes of a promising biomarker. In J. Tost (Ed.), DNA methylation: Methods and protocols (Vol. 507). Berlin: Springer.

  • Varela F., Maturana H., Uribe R. (1974) Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems 5: 187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, C. K. (2008). Beyond theoretical reduction and layer-cake anti-reduction. PhilSci Archive. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3834//.

  • Wimsatt W. (2000) Emergence as non-aggregativity and the biases of reductionism. Foundations of Science 3(5): 269–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt W. (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slobodan Perovic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perovic, S., Miquel, PA. On Gene’s Action and Reciprocal Causation. Found Sci 16, 31–46 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-010-9199-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-010-9199-2

Keywords

Navigation