Biology and Philosophy 29 (6):807-831 (2014)

Authors
Abstract
In its last round of publications in September 2012, the Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) assigned a biochemical function to most of the human genome, which was taken up by the media as meaning the end of ‘Junk DNA’. This provoked a heated reaction from evolutionary biologists, who among other things claimed that ENCODE adopted a wrong and much too inclusive notion of function, making its dismissal of junk DNA merely rhetorical. We argue that this criticism rests on misunderstandings concerning the nature of the ENCODE project, the relevant notion of function and the claim that most of our genome is junk. We argue that evolutionary accounts of function presuppose functions as ‘causal roles’, and that selection is but a useful proxy for relevant functions, which might well be unsuitable to biomedical research. Taking a closer look at the discovery process in which ENCODE participates, we argue that ENCODE’s strategy of biochemical signatures successfully identified activities of DNA elements with an eye towards causal roles of interest to biomedical research. We argue that ENCODE’s controversial claim of functionality should be interpreted as saying that 80 % of the genome is engaging in relevant biochemical activities and is very likely to have a causal role in phenomena deemed relevant to biomedical research. Finally, we discuss ambiguities in the meaning of junk DNA and in one of the main arguments raised for its prevalence, and we evaluate the impact of ENCODE’s results on the claim that most of our genome is junk
Keywords Biological function  Causal role  Selected effect  ENCODE  Junk DNA
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2014
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10539-014-9441-3
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,379
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

Functional Analysis.Robert Cummins - 1975 - Journal of Philosophy 72 (November):741-64.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How Objective Are Biological Functions?Marcel Weber - 2017 - Synthese 194 (12):4741-4755.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Genome as a Developmental Organ.Ehud Lamm - 2014 - Journal of Physiology 592 (11):2237-2244.
Junk Representations.Lawrence A. Shapiro - 1997 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (3):345-361.
Universalism and Junk.A. J. Cotnoir - 2014 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92 (4):649-664.
Function Without Purpose.Ron Amundson & George V. Lauder - 1994 - Biology and Philosophy 9 (4):443-469.
Worlds Enough for Junk.David Sanson - 2016 - Res Philosophica 93 (1):1-18.
The Extravagant Creator of Junk DNA.James Goetz - 2006 - International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design Archive.
What Are the Cognitive Costs of Racism? A Reply to Gendler.Joshua Mugg - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (2):217-229.
Four Notions of Biological Function.Arno G. Wouters - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34 (4):633-668.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-03-22

Total views
68 ( #170,489 of 2,519,690 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #270,824 of 2,519,690 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes