The Semiosis of “Side Effects” in Genetic Interventions

Biosemiotics 9 (3):345-364 (2016)

Genetic interventions, which include transgenic engineering, gene editing, and other forms of genome modification aimed at altering the information “in” the genetic code, are rapidly increasing in power and scale. Biosemiotics offers unique tools for understanding the nature, risks, scope, and prospects of such technologies, though few in the community have turned their attention specifically in this direction. Bruni is an important exception. In this paper, I examine how we frame the concept of “side effects” that result from genetic interventions and how the concept stands up to current perspectives of the role of organism activity in development. I propose that once the role of living systems in constructing and modifying the informational value of their various developmental resources is taken into account, the concept of a “side effect” will need to be significantly revised. Far from merely a disturbance brought about in a senseless albeit complex system, a biosemiotic view would take “side effects” as at least sometimes the organism’s active re-organization in order to accommodate or make use of novelty. This insight is nascent in the work of developmental plasticity and niche construction theory, but it is brought into sharper focus by the explicitly interpretive perspective offered by biosemiotics. Understanding the “side effects” of genetic interventions depends in part on being able to articulate when and where unexpected consequences are a result of semiotic activity at various levels within the system. While a semiotic interpretation of “side effects” puts into question the naive attitude that would see all unintended side effects as indications of disturbance in system functionality, it certainly does not imply that such side effects are of no concern for the viability of the organisms in the system. As we shall see, the fact that such interventions do not respect the translation of information that occurs in multi-level biological systems ensures that disruption is still likely. But it does unprivilege the human agent as the sole generator of meaning and information in the products of biotechnology, with important consequences on how we understand our relationship with other species.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s12304-016-9274-3
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 49,066
External links

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

The Century of the Gene.Evelyn Fox Keller - 2001 - Journal of the History of Biology 34 (3):613-615.
Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature.D. Walsh - 1997 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):613-617.
Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System.Alicia Juarrero - 1999 - Emergence: Complexity and Organization 2 (2):24-57.
The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance.Ernst Mayr - 1985 - Journal of the History of Biology 18 (1):145-153.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Action, Attitude, and the Knobe Effect: Another Asymmetry.Joshua Shepherd - 2012 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (2):171-185.
The Moral Permissibility of Accepting Bad Side Effects.Robert D. Anderson - 2009 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (2):255-266.
Fringe Benefits, Side Effects, and Indifference: A Reply to Feltz.Thomas Nadelhoffer - 2007 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 27 (1):127-136.
Knobe Vs Machery: Testing the Trade-Off Hypothesis.Ron Mallon - 2008 - Mind and Language 23 (2):247-255.
Unintentionally Biasing the Data: Reply to Knobe.Roblin R. Meeks - 2004 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24 (2):220-223.
Knobe, Side Effects, and the Morally Good Business.Andy Wible - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 85 (S1):173 - 178.


Added to PP index

Total views
20 ( #478,029 of 2,311,209 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #517,743 of 2,311,209 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature