Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:46:31.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

James Griesemer
James Griesemer*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8673.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Developmental systems theory (DST) expands the unit of replication from genes to whole systems of developmental resources, which DST interprets in terms of cycling developmental processes. Expansion seems required by DST's argument against privileging genes in evolutionary and developmental explanations of organic traits. DST and the expanded replicator brook no distinction between biological and cultural evolution. However, by endorsing a single expanded unit of inheritance and leaving the classical molecular notion of gene intact, DST achieves only a nominal reunification of heredity and development. I argue that an alternative conceptualization of inheritance denies the classical opposition of genetics and development while avoiding the singularity inherent in the replicator concept. It also yields a new unit—the reproducer—which genuinely integrates genetic and developmental perspectives. The reproducer concept articulates the non-separability of “genetic” and “developmental” roles in units of heredity, development, and evolution. DST reformulated in terms of reproducers rather than replicators preserves an empirically interesting distinction between cultural and biological evolution.

Type
Philosophy of Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Sep., 2000 , 2000 , pp. S348 - S368
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

This work germinated during fellowships at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (1992–93) and Collegium Budapest (1994–95). I thank the Rektors and Fellows and the respective Biology Group Conveners, Peter Hammerstein, and Eörs Szathmáry. This work would not have been done without the interest and support of Leo Buss, Eva Jablonka, Evelyn Fox Keller, Ross Kiester, and Eörs Szathmáry. I thank Peter Godfrey-Smith for organizing the symposium and audiences in Berlin, Chicago, Duke, Jerusalem, Northwestern, and San Diego. I thank especially my former colleague Michael Dietrich for many helpful discussions and Connie, Ellen, and Kate for their support. Financial support of USDA Cooperative Agreement PNW 95–0768 and UC Davis Faculty Research Grants is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Dawkins, Richard (1982), The Extended Phenotype. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. (1995), River Out of Eden, New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
Gánti, Tibor (1997), “Biogenesis Itself”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 187: 583–593.10.1006/jtbi.1996.0391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald (1997), Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 4th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart (1996), “Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation”, Erkenntnis 44: 49–71.10.1007/BF00172853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Russell (1992), “Death of The Gene: Developmental Systems Strike Back”, in Griffiths, Paul (ed.), Trees of Life. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 165–209.10.1007/978-94-015-8038-0_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James R. (in press), “The Informational Gene and the Substantial Body: On the Generalization of Evolutionary Theory by Abstraction”, in Cartwright, Nancy and Jones, Martin (eds.), Varieties of Idealization. Poznan Studies (Leszek Nowak, series ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi Publishers.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James R. (2000), “Reproduction and the Reduction of Genetics”, in Beurton, Peter, Falk, Raphael, and Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 240–285.10.1017/CBO9780511527296.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James and Wimsatt, William (1989), “Picturing Weismannism: A Case Study of Conceptual Evolution”, in Ruse, M. (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology Is, Essays for David Hull, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 75–137.10.1007/978-94-009-1169-7_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul and Gray, Russell (1994), “Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanation”, Journal of Philosophy 91: 277–304.10.2307/2940982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul and Gray, Russell. (1997), “Replicator II—Judgement Day”, Biology and Philosophy 12: 471–492.10.1023/A:1006551516090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Lily (1998), “A Book of Life? How the Genome Became an Information System and DNA a Language”, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 504–526.10.1353/pbm.1998.0038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, Evelyn Fox (1995), Refiguring Life. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/kell92562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, Richard (1968), Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, Richard (1993), Biology as Ideology. New York: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1975), The Theory of Evolution, 3rd ed. Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John. (1986), The Problems of Biology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John and Szathmáry, Eörs (1995), The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Morowitz, Harold, Heinz, Bettina, and Deamer, David (1988), “The Chemical Logic of a Minimum Protocell”, Origins of Life & Evolution of the Biosphere 18: 281–287.10.1007/BF01804674CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, Lenny (1992), “A Kernel of Truth? On the Reality of the Genetic Program”, in Hull, David, Forbes, Mickey, and Okruhlik, Kathleen (eds.), PSA 1992, vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 335–348.Google Scholar
Neumann-Held, Eva (1998), “The Gene is Dead—Long Live the Gene! Conceptualizing Genes the Constructionist Way”, in Koslowski, Peter (ed.), Sociobiology and Bioeconomics: The Theory of Evolution in Biological and Economic Theory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 105–137.Google Scholar
Oyama, Susan (1985), The Ontogeny of Information. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra (1996), “Biological Information: A Skeptical Look at Some Central Dogmas of Molecular Biology”, in Sarkar, Sahotra (ed.), The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 187–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, Kim and Kitcher, Philip (1988), “Return of the Gene”, Journal of Philosophy 85: 339–361.10.2307/2026953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, Smith, Kelly, and Dickison, Michael (1996) “The Extended Replicator”, Biology and Philosophy 11: 377–403.10.1007/BF00128788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szathmáry, Eörs and Smith, John Maynard (1997), “From Replicators to Reproducers: The First Major Transitions Leading to Life”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 187: 555–572.10.1006/jtbi.1996.0389CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, Michael and Griesemer, James (1998), “Populational Heritability: Empirical Studies of Evolution in Metapopulations,” American Naturalist 151: 135–147.10.1086/286107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimsatt, William (1974), “Complexity and Organization”, in Kenneth Schaffner and Robert S. Cohen (eds.) PSA 1972. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, 20: 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William. (1980), “Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in Nickles, Thomas (ed.), Scientific Discovery, volume II: Historical and Scientific Case Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 213–259.10.1007/978-94-009-9015-9_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar