David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 38 (1):238-254 (2007)
While the definition of the ‘genotype’ has undergone dramatic changes in the transition from classical to molecular genetics, the definition of the ‘phenotype’ has remained for a long time within the classical framework. In addition, while the notion of the genotype has received significant attention from philosophers of biology, the notion of the phenotype has not. Recent developments in the technology of measuring gene-expression levels have made it possible to conceive of phenotypic traits in terms of levels of gene expression. We demonstrate that not only has this become possible but it has also become an actual practice. This suggests a significant change in our conception of the phenotype: as in the case of the ‘genotype’, phenotypes can now be conceived in quantitative and measurable terms on a comprehensive molecular level. We discuss in what sense gene expression profiles can be regarded as phenotypic traits and whether these traits are better described as a novel concept of phenotype or as an extension of the classical concept. We argue for an extension of the classical concept and call for an examination of the type of extension involved
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Ohad Nachtomy, Yaron Ramati, Ayelet Shavit & Zohar Yakhini (2009). It Takes Two to Tango: Genotyping and Phenotyping in Genome-Wide Association Studies. Biological Theory 4 (3):294-301.
Similar books and articles
Degeng Wang (2005). “Molecular Gene”: Interpretation in the Right Context. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):453-464.
Laurence Perbal (2013). The 'Warrior Gene' and the Mãori People: The Responsibility of the Geneticists. Bioethics 27 (7):382-387.
Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz (2006). Genes in the Postgenomic Era. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (6):499-521.
Sylvia Culp (1997). Establishing Genotype/Phenotype Relationships: Gene Targeting as an Experimental Approach. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):278.
Nicholas Agar (1996). Teleogy and Genes. Biology and Philosophy 11 (3):289-300.
Brian K. Hall (2003). Unlocking the Black Box Between Genotype and Phenotype: Cell Condensations as Morphogenetic (Modular) Units. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 18 (2):219-247.
G. P. Wagner (1988). The Gene and its Phenotype. Biology and Philosophy 3 (1):105-115.
Kathryn S. Plaisance, Thomas A. C. Reydon & Mehmet Elgin (2012). Why the (Gene) Counting Argument Fails in the Massive Modularity Debate: The Need for Understanding Gene Concepts and Genotype-Phenotype Relationships. Philosophical Psychology 25 (6):873-892.
C. Kenneth Waters (1994). Genes Made Molecular. Philosophy of Science 61 (2):163-185.
Vanessa Lux (2008). The Concept of the Gene in Psychiatric Genetics and its Consequences for the Concept of Mental Illness. Poiesis and Praxis 6 (1-2):65-77.
P. Portin (2000). The Origin, Development and Present Status of the Concept of the Gene: A Short Historical Account of the Discoveries. Current Genomics 1:29--40.
Ingo Brigandt (2010). The Epistemic Goal of a Concept: Accounting for the Rationality of Semantic Change and Variation. Synthese 177 (1):19-40.
Joel D. Velasco (2012). Objective and Subjective Probability in Gene Expression. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 110:5-10.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads10 ( #167,668 of 1,679,470 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #182,904 of 1,679,470 )
How can I increase my downloads?