Genes `for' phenotypes: A modern history view [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 16 (2):189--213 (2001)
We attempt to improve the understanding of the notion of agene being `for a phenotypic trait or traits. Considering theimplicit functional ascription of one thing being `for another,we submit a more restrictive version of `gene for talk.Accordingly, genes are only to be thought of as being forphenotypic traits when good evidence is available that thepresence or prevalence of the gene in a population is the resultof natural selection on that particular trait, and that theassociation between that trait and the gene in question isdemonstrably causal. It is therefore necessary to gatherstatistical, biochemical, historical, as well as ecologicalinformation before properly claiming that a gene is for aphenotypic trait. Instead of hampering practical use of the `genefor talk, our approach aims at stimulating much needed researchinto the functional ecology and comparative evolutionary biologyof gene action.
|Keywords||concept of the gene gene function philosophical debate on functions|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz (2006). Genes in the Postgenomic Era. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (6):499-521.
Rosario M. Piro (2011). Are All Genes Regulatory Genes? Biology and Philosophy 26 (4):595-602.
C. Kenneth Waters (1994). Genes Made Molecular. Philosophy of Science 61 (2):163-185.
Peter J. Beurton, Raphael Falk & Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (eds.) (2000). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas A. C. Reydon (2009). Gene Names as Proper Names of Individuals: An Assessment. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (2):409-432.
Karola Stotz & Paul Griffiths (2004). Genes: Philosophical Analyses Put to the Test. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (1):5 - 28.
Lenny Moss (2006). The Question of Questions: What is a Gene? Comments on Rolston and Griffths & Stotz. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (6):523-534.
Degeng Wang (2005). “Molecular Gene”: Interpretation in the Right Context. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):453-464.
Petter Portin (2009). The Elusive Concept of the Gene. Hereditas 146 (3):112-117.
Petter Portin (2002). Historical Development of the Concept of the Gene. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (3):257 – 286.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads223 ( #3,751 of 1,696,506 )
Recent downloads (6 months)22 ( #22,012 of 1,696,506 )
How can I increase my downloads?