David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (3):257 – 286 (2002)
The classical view of the gene prevailing during the 1910s and 1930s comprehended the gene as the indivisible unit of genetic transmission, genetic recombination, gene mutation and gene function. The discovery of intragenic recombination in the early 1940s led to the neoclassical concept of the gene, which prevailed until the 1970s. In this view the gene or cistron, as it was now called, was divided into its constituent parts, the mutons and recons, materially identified as nucleotides. Each cistron was believed to be responsible for the synthesis of one single mRNA and concurrently for one single polypeptide. The discoveries of DNA technology, beginning in the early 1970s, have led to the second revolution in the concept of the gene in which none of the classical or neoclassical criteria for the definition of the gene hold strictly true. These are the discoveries concerning gene repetition and overlapping, movable genes, complex promoters, multiple polyadenylation sites, polyprotein genes, editing of the primary transcript, pseudogenes and gene nesting. Thus, despite the fact that our comprehension of the structure and organization of the genetic material has greatly increased, we are left with a rather , open and general concept of the gene. This article discusses past and present contemplations of genes, genomes, genotypes and phenotypes as well as the most recent advances of the study of the organization of genomes.
|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
Neeraja Sankaran (2010). Mutant Bacteriophages, Frank Macfarlane Burnet, and the Changing Nature of "Genespeak" in the 1930s. Journal of the History of Biology 43 (3):571 - 599.
Neil C. Manson (2006). What is Genetic Information, and Why is It Significant? A Contextual, Contrastive, Approach. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1):1–16.
Tudor M. Baetu (2011). A Defense of Syntax-Based Gene Concepts in Postgenomics: Genes as Modular Subroutines in the Master Genomic Program. Philosophy of Science 78 (5):712-723.
Neeraja Sankaran (2010). Mutant Bacteriophages, Frank Macfarlane Burnet, and the Changing Nature of “Genespeak” in the 1930s. Journal of the History of Biology 43 (3):571-599.
Similar books and articles
Karola Stotz & Paul Griffiths (2004). Genes: Philosophical Analyses Put to the Test. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (1):5-28.
Laurence Perbal (2013). The 'Warrior Gene' and the Mãori People: The Responsibility of the Geneticists. Bioethics 27 (7):382-387.
C. Kenneth Waters (1994). Genes Made Molecular. Philosophy of Science 61 (2):163-185.
Jonathan Michael Kaplan & Massimo Pigliucci (2001). Genes `For' Phenotypes: A Modern History View. Biology and Philosophy 16 (2):189--213.
Thomas Fogle (1990). Are Genes Units of Inheritance? Biology and Philosophy 5 (3):349-371.
Rosario M. Piro (2011). Are All Genes Regulatory Genes? Biology and Philosophy 26 (4):595-602.
Petter Portin (2009). The Elusive Concept of the Gene. Hereditas 146 (3):112-117.
Added to index2010-05-07
Total downloads32 ( #150,152 of 1,924,989 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #254,885 of 1,924,989 )
How can I increase my downloads?