Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:47:21.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Macromolecular Pluralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Matthew H. Slater
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Different chemical species are often cited as paradigm examples of structurally delimited natural kinds. While classificatory monism may thus seem plausible for simple molecules, it looks less attractive for complex biological macromolecules. I focus on the case of proteins that are most plausibly individuated by their functions. Is there a single, objective count of proteins? I argue that the vagaries of function individuation infect protein classification. We should be pluralists about macromolecular classification.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , December 2009 , pp. 851 - 863
Copyright
Copyright © 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

‡

I am grateful for comments on early drafts of this article from audiences at the 2007 Northwest Philosophy Conference, the 2008 PSA biennial meeting, and the 2008 Eastern APA. I would particularly like to thank Moira Howes and William Goodwin (my commentators at the NPC and APA, respectively) and Hasok Chang, Robin Hendry, and Jonathan Tsou for comments and questions that improved this essay.

References

Amundson, Ron, and Lauder, G. V. (1994), “Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Functions in Evolutionary Biology”, Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Functions in Evolutionary Biology 9:443–470.Google Scholar
Benach, Jordi, Atrian, Sílvia, Fibla, Joan, Gonzàlez-Duarte, Roser, and Ladenstein, Rudolf (2000), “Structure–Function Relationships in Drosophila melanogaster Alcohol Dehydrogenase Allozymes ADHS, ADHF, and ADHUF, and Distantly Related Forms”, Structure–Function Relationships in Drosophila melanogaster Alcohol Dehydrogenase Allozymes ADHS, ADHF, and ADHUF, and Distantly Related Forms 267:3613–3622.Google ScholarPubMed
Cummins, Robert (1975), “Functional Analysis”, Functional Analysis 72:741–765.Google Scholar
Davies, Paul Sheldon (2001), Norms of Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5043.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Brian (2001), Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1992), “Eliminative Pluralism”, Eliminative Pluralism 59:671–690.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (1994), “A Modern History Theory of Functions”, A Modern History Theory of Functions 28 (3): 344–362..Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Vrba, Elizabeth (1982), “Exaptation—a Missing Term in the Science of Form”, Exaptation—a Missing Term in the Science of Form 8:4–15.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984), “Species”, Species 51:308–333.Google Scholar
Koshland, D. E. Jr. (1958), “Application of a Theory of Enzyme Specificity to Protein Synthesis”, Application of a Theory of Enzyme Specificity to Protein Synthesis 44 (2): 98–104..Google ScholarPubMed
Lodish, Harvey, Baltimore, David, Berk, Arnold, Zipursky, S. Lawrence, Matsudaira, Paul, and Darnell, James (1995), Molecular Cell Biology. New York: Scientific American Books.Google Scholar
Mathews, Christopher K., and van Holde, K. E. (1996), Biochemistry. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett (1984), Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett (1989), “In Defense of Proper Functions”, In Defense of Proper Functions 56 (2): 288–302..Google Scholar
Neander, Karen (1991), “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defense”, Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defense 58:168–184.Google Scholar
Rapp, Mikaela, Granseth, Eric, Seppälä, Susanna, and Heijne, Gunnar von (2006), “Identification and Evolution of Dual-Topolgy Membrane Proteins”, Identification and Evolution of Dual-Topolgy Membrane Proteins 13:112–116.Google ScholarPubMed
Ridley, Mark (2003), Evolution. 3rd ed. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Ruphy, Stéphanie (forthcoming), “Are Stellar Kinds Natural Kinds? A Challenging Newcomer in the Monism/Pluralism and Realism/Antirealism Debate”, Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Slater, Matthew H. (2005), “Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other”, Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other 72 (1): 22–42..Google Scholar
Stanford, P. Kyle (1995), “For Pluralism and Against Realism about Species”, For Pluralism and Against Realism about Species 62:70–91.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry (1973), “Functions”, Functions 82:139–168.Google Scholar