What are genes “for” or where are traits “from”? What is the question?

Bioessays 31 (2):198-208 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

For at least a century it has been known that multiple factors play a role in the development of complex traits, and yet the notion that there are genes “for” such traits, which traces back to Mendel, is still widespread. In this paper, we illustrate how the Mendelian model has tacitly encouraged the idea that we can explain complexity by reducing it to enumerable genes. By this approach many genes associated with simple as well as complex traits have been identified. But the genetic architecture of biological traits, or how they are made, remains largely unknown. In essence, this reflects the tension between reductionism as the current “modus operandi” of science, and the emerging knowledge of the nature of complex traits. Recent interest in systems biology as a unifying approach indicates a reawakened acceptance of the complexity of complex traits, though the temptation is to replace “gene for” thinking by comparably reductionistic “network for” concepts. Both approaches implicitly mix concepts of variants and invariants in genetics. Even the basic question is unclear: what does one need to know to “understand” the genetic basis of complex traits? New operational ideas about how to deal with biological complexity are needed.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Genetic traits.Fred Gifford - 1990 - Biology and Philosophy 5 (3):327-347.
Developmental causation and the problem of homology.David A. Baum - 2013 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 5 (20150505).
The myth of genetic enhancement.Philip M. Rosoff - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (3):163-178.
On the explanatory roles of natural selection.Patrick Forber - 2005 - Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):329-342.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-23

Downloads
49 (#316,480)

6 months
5 (#652,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Why genes are like lemons.F. Boem, E. Ratti, M. Andreoletti & G. Boniolo - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 57 (June):88-95.

Add more citations

References found in this work

What Genes Can't Do.Lenny Moss - 2003 - MIT Press.
The Century of the Gene.Evelyn Fox Keller - 2001 - Journal of the History of Biology 34 (3):613-615.
What Genes Can’t Do.Lenny Moss - 2003 - Journal of the History of Biology 38 (2):383-384.
Genes in the postgenomic era.Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (6):499-521.
Genes: Philosophical Analyses Put to the Test.Karola Stotz & Paul Griffiths - 2004 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (1):5-28.

View all 7 references / Add more references