Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T16:45:13.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genes Made Molecular

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

C. Kenneth Waters
C. Kenneth Waters*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science University of Minnesota
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates what molecular biology has done for our understanding of the gene. I base a new account of the gene concept of classical genetics on the classical dogma that gene differences cause phenotypic differences. Although contemporary biologists often think of genes in terms of this concept, molecular biology provides a second way to understand genes. I clarify this second way by articulating a molecular gene concept. This concept unifies our understanding of the molecular basis of a wide variety of phenomena, including the phenomena that classical genetics explains in terms of gene differences causing phenotypic differences.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 1994, pp. 163 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I thank Tom Dahlin for engineering assistance and Kate Beckingham, Lindley Darden, Ron Giere, Bob Herman, David Hull, Harold Kincaid, Pete Magee, David Queller, Joan Strassmann, Mike Simmons, and especially Erich Reck and Tom Wilson for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. Early stages of this research was supported by NSF Grant No. Dir 89–12221; later stages were supported by the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota and the McKnight Foundation.

References

Beadle, G. W. and Tatum, E. L. (1941), “Genetic Control of Biochemical Reactions in Neospora”, Neospora 27: 499–506.Google Scholar
Benzer, S. (1955), “Fine Structure of a Genetic Region in Bacteriophage”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 41: 344–354.10.1073/pnas.41.6.344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bridges, C. B. and Morgan, T. H. (1919), “The Second-Chromosome Group of Mutant Characters”, Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 278: 123–304.Google Scholar
Carlson, E. A. (1966), The Gene: A Critical History. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (1988), Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind/Brain. Reprint. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Darden, L. (1991), Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. ([1859] 1964), On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gifford, F. (1990), “Genetic Traits”, Biology and Philosophy 5: 327–347.10.1007/BF00165257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1974), The Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
King, R. C. and Stansfield, W. D. (1990), A Dictionary of Genetics. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1982), “Genes”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33: 337–359.10.1093/bjps/33.4.337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences”, The Philosophical Review 93: 335–373.10.2307/2184541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1992), “Gene: Current Usages”, in Keller, E. F. and Lloyd, E. A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 128–131.Google Scholar
Lewin, B. (1990), Genes IV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1992), “Genotype and Phenotype”, in Keller, E. F. and Lloyd, E. A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 137–144.Google Scholar
Maienschein, J. (1992), “Gene: Historical Perspectives”, in Keller, E. F. and Lloyd, E. A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 122–127.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. H. (1919), The Physical Basis of Heredity. Philadelphia: Lipincott.10.5962/bhl.title.56155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T. H. (1926), The Theory of the Gene. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. H.; Sturtevant, A. H.; Muller, H. J.; and Bridges, C. B. (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1922), “Variation Due to Change in the Individual Gene”, American Naturalist 56: 32–50.10.1086/279846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139171724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Strickberger, M. W. (1968), Genetics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, A. H. and Beadle, G. W. (1939), An Introduction to Genetics. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Waters, C. K. (1990), “Why the Anti-Reductionist Consensus Won't Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics”, PSA 1990, vol. 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 125–139.Google Scholar
Watson, J. D.; Hopkins, N. H.; Roberts, J. W.; Steitz, J. A.; and Weiner, A. M. (1987), Molecular Biology of the Gene. 4th ed. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing.Google Scholar