Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T19:17:58.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Relations Among Fields: Mendelian, Cytological, and Molecular Mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2009

Lindley Darden
Lindley Darden
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Philosophers of biology have debated the nature of the relations between Mendelian genetics and molecular biology for some fifty years. They have proposed a variety of relations between the fields, including reduction, replacement, and explanatory extension. This chapter proposes a new analysis: the two fields discovered separate but serially connected mechanisms. These hereditary mechanisms have different working entities and the mechanisms operate at different times in an integrated temporal series of hereditary mechanisms. This analysis better characterizes the practice of biologists than previous accounts, as evidenced both by the historical development of the two fields and by presentations of the results of the two fields in contemporary textbooks.

Accounts of formal reduction played many roles in philosophical analyses of science in the second half of the twentieth century. Reduction was seen both as the relation among theories at different levels of organization at a given time (sometimes called “microreduction”) and as the relation between predecessor and successor theories. Furthermore, reduction was tied closely to explanation. The connection between what was to be explained (the explanandum) and what did the explaining (the explanans, usually general laws) was claimed to be (usually) deduction (Hempel 1965). Hence, the deduction of the reduced theory (or the observations that it explained) from the reducing theory in formal reduction permitted the claim that the reducing theory explained the reduced theory (or its observation statements). The status of the reduced theory after a reduction was different in different accounts of formal reduction.

Type
Chapter
Information
Reasoning in Biological Discoveries
Essays on Mechanisms, Interfield Relations, and Anomaly Resolution
 , pp. 98 - 124
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

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.)

References

Alberts, Bruce, Bray, Dennis, Lewis, Julian, Raff, Martin, Roberts, Keith, and Watson, James D. (1983), Molecular Biology of the Cell. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bateson, William, Saunders, E. R., and Punnett, R. C. (1906), “Experimental Studies in the Physiology of Heredity,” Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society III. Reprinted in R. C. Punnett (1928), Scientific Papers of William Bateson, v.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–161.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William and Richardson, Robert C. (1993), Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bogen, James and Woodward, James (1988), “Saving the Phenomena,” Philosophical Review 97: 303–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boveri, Theodor (1904), Ergebnisse über die Konstitution der chromatischen Substanz des Zellkerns. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
Chadarevian, Soraya (2002), Designs for Life: Molecular Biology after World War II. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Correns, Carl ([1900] 1966), “G. Mendel's Law Concerning the Behavior of Progeny of Varietal Hybrids,” translated from German and reprinted in Stern, C. and Sherwood, E. (eds.), The Origin of Genetics, A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, pp. 119–132.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl F. (2001), “Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy,” Philosophy of Science 68: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. (2002a), “Structures of Scientific Theories,” in Machamer, Peter K. and Silberstein, M. (eds.), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 55–79.Google Scholar
Crick, Francis, Barnett, Leslie, Brenner, Sydney, and Watts-Tobin, R. J. (1961), “General Nature of the Genetic Code for Proteins,” Nature 192: 1227–1232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darden, Lindley (1991), Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley (1995), “Exemplars, Abstractions, and Anomalies: Representations and Theory Change in Mendelian and Molecular Genetics,” in Lennox, James G. and Wolters, Gereon (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 137–158.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley (1996), “Generalizations in Biology,” Essay Review of K. Schaffner's Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 27: 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley (2002), “Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms: Schema Instantiation, Modular Subassembly, Forward/Backward Chaining,” Philosophy of Science (Supplement) 69: S354–S365.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley and Craver, Carl (2002), “Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley and Maull, Nancy (1977), “Interfield Theories,” Philosophy of Science 44: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Bernard D. (1980), “Frontiers of the Biological Sciences,” Science 209: 78–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogle, T. (2000), “The Dissolution of Protein Coding Genes in Molecular Biology,” in Beurton, Peter, Falk, Raphael, and Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. (1996), “Mechanisms and The Nature of Causation,” Erkenntnis 44: 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. (2002), “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation,” Philosophy of Science (Supplement) 69: S342–S353.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hughes, Arthur (1959), A History of Cytology. New York: Abelard-Schuman.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Jacob, Francois and Monod, Jacques (1961), “Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms in the Synthesis of Proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology 3: 318–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johannsen, Wilhelm (1909), Elemente der Exakten Erblichkeitslehre. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
Judson, Horace F. (1996), The Eighth Day of Creation: The Makers of the Revolution in Biology. Expanded Edition. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Lily E. (2000), Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. and Oppenheim, P. (1956), “On Reduction,” Philosophical Studies 7: 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyes, Martha (1999a), “The Prion Challenge to the “Central Dogma” of Molecular Biology, 1965–1991, Part I: Prelude to Prions,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyes, Martha (1999b), “The Prion Challenge to the “Central Dogma” of Molecular Biology, 1965–1991, Part II: The Problem with Prions,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30: 181–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences,” The Philosophical Review 93: 335–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World,” in Kitcher, Philip and Salmon, Wesley (eds.), Scientific Explanation. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 13. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 410–505.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1999), “The Hegemony of Molecular Biology,” Biology & Philosophy 14: 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Robert E. (1982), From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry: The Making of a Biomedical Discipline. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Carver, Carl (2000), “Thinking About Mechanisms,” Philosophy of Science 67: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, Gregor ([1865] 1966), “Experiments on Plant Hybrids,” translated from German and reprinted in Stern, Curt and Sherwood, Eva (eds.), The Origin of Genetics, A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
Monaghan, Floyd and Corcos, A. (1984), “On the Origins of the Mendelian Laws,” The Journal of Heredity 75: 67–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morange, Michel (1998), A History of Molecular Biology. Trans. from French by Matthew Cobb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1909), “What Are ‘Factors’ in Mendelian Explanations?” American Breeder's Association Report 5: 365–368.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1910a), “Chromosomes and Heredity,” American Naturalist 44: 449–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1910b), “Sex-Limited Inheritance in Drosophila,” Science 32: 120–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1911a), “An Attempt to Analyze the Constitution of the Chromosomes on the Basis of Sex-Limited Inheritance in Drosophila,” Journal of Experimental Zoology 11: 365–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1917), “The Theory of the Gene,” American Naturalist 51: 513–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1919), The Physical Basis of Heredity. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1926), The Theory of the Gene. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt and Lynch, Clara J. (1912), “The Linkage of Two Factors in Drosophila that Are Not Sex-Linked,” Biological Bulletin 23: 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt, Sturtevant, A. H., Muller, H. J., and Bridges, Calvin B. (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernest (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
Nirenberg, M. W. and Matthaei, J. H. (1961), “The Dependence of Cell-Free Protein Synthesis in E. coli Upon Naturally Occurring or Synthetic Polyribonucleotides,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 47: 1588–1602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olby, Robert (1994), The Path to the Double Helix: The Discovery of DNA. Revised Edition. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, Paul and Putnam, Hilary (1958), “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis,” in Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Pauling, Linus (1939), The Nature of the Chemical Bond. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Pauling, Linus and Corey, Robert B. (1950), “Two Hydrogen-Bonded Spiral Configurations of the Polypeptide Chain,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 72: 5349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (1974b), “The Peripherality of Reductionism in the Development of Molecular Genetics,” Journal of the History of Biology 7: 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (1993), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stent, Gunther (1969), The Coming of the Golden Age: A View of the End of Progress. Garden City, NY: American Museum of Natural History Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, Walter (1903), “The Chromosomes in Heredity,” Biological Bulletin 4: 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabery, James G. (2004), “Synthesizing Activities and Interactions in the Concept of a Mechanism,” Philosophy of Science 71: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, Hugo de ([1900] 1966), “The Law of Segregation of Hybrids.” Translated from German and reprinted in Stern, C. and Sherwood, E. (eds.), The Origin of Genetics, A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, pp. 107–117.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (1990), “Why the Anti-Reductionist Consensus Won't Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics,” in Fine, Arthur, Forbes, Micky, and Wessels, Linda (eds.), PSA 1990, v. 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 125–139.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (1994), “Genes Made Molecular,” Philosophy of Science 61: 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, James D. (1965), Molecular Biology of the Gene. New York: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Watson, James D. (1970), Molecular Biology of the Gene. 2nd ed. New York: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Watson, James D. (1977), Molecular Biology of the Gene. 3rd ed. New York: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Watson, James D., Hopkins, Nancy H., Roberts, Jeffrey W., Steitz, Joan Argetsinger, and Weiner, Alan M. (1988), Molecular Biology of the Gene. 4th ed. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Watson, James D. and Crick, Francis (1953a), “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid,” Nature 171: 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, James D. and Crick, Francis (1953b), “Genetical Implications of the Structure of Deoxyribonucleic Acid,” Nature 171: 964–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Abraham, Handler, Philip, Smith, Emil L., and Stetten, DeWitt Jr. (1954), Principles of Biochemistry. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edmund B. (1900), The Cell in Development and Inheritance. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William (1976), “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account,” in Michalos, A. C., C. Hooker, A., Pearce, G., and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), PSA 1974. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 671–710.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1981), “Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination,” in Brewer, M. and Collins, B. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 124–163.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×