Catherine Elizabeth Kendig

This paper offers both a criticism of and a novel alternative perspective on current ontologies that take race to be something that is either static and wholly evident at one’s birth or preformed prior to it. In it I survey and critically assess six of the most popular conceptions of race, concluding with an outline of my own suggestion for an alternative account. I suggest that race can be best understood in terms of one’s experience of his or her body, one’s interactions with other individuals, and one’s experiences within particular cultures and societies. This embeddedness of human experience has been left out of most discussions of race which tie race to a set of characteristics (either biologically or sociologically defined). To rectify this omission, I articulate what I call the “physiosocial” view of race. This emphasizes the situatedness of human experience, the reciprocal and dynamic nature of the racial identities of individuals and groups. Approaching racial identity in this way entails a union of two historically uncomfortable partners: biological and sociological conceptions of race. If successful, this philosophical stance may illuminate the process of racial self-ascription as well as provide an explanation for the potential changeability of an individual’s racial identity at different times and at different places.

Discussions over whether these natural kinds exist, what is the nature of their existence, and whether natural kinds are themselves natural kinds aim to not only characterize the kinds of things that exist in the world, but also what can knowledge of these categories provide. Although philosophically critical, much of the past discussions of natural kinds have often answered these questions in a way that is unresponsive to, or has actively avoided, discussions of the empirical use of natural kinds and what I dub “activities of natural kinding” and “natural kinding practices”. The natural kinds of a particular discipline are those entities, events, mechanisms, processes, relationships, and concepts that delimit investigation within it—but we might reasonably ask: How are these natural kinds discovered?, How are they made?, Are they revisable?, and Where do they come from? A turn to natural kinding practices reveals a new set of questions open for investigation: How do natural kinds explain through practice?, What are natural kinding practices and classifications and why should we care?, What is the nature of natural kinds viewed as a set of activities?, and How do practice approaches to natural kinds shape and reconfigure scientific disciplines? Natural kinds have traditionally been discussed in terms of how they classify the contents of the world. The metaphysical project has been one which identifies essences, laws, sameness relations, fundamental properties, and clusters of family resemblances and how these map out the ontological space of the world. But actually how this is done has been less important in the discussion than the resultant categories that are produced. I aim to rectify these omissions and suggest a new metaphysical project investigating kinds in practice.

“Proof of concept” is a phrase frequently used in descriptions of research sought in program announcements, in experimental studies, and in the marketing of new technologies. It is often coupled with either a short definition or none at all, its meaning assumed to be fully understood. This is problematic. As a phrase with potential implications for research and technology, its assumed meaning requires some analysis to avoid it becoming a descriptive category that refers to all things scientifically exciting. I provide a short analysis of proof of concept research and offer an example of it within synthetic biology. I suggest that not only are there activities that circumscribe new epistemological categories but there are also associated normative ethical categories or principles linked to the research. I examine these and provide an outline for an alternative ethical account to describe these activities that I refer to as “extended agency ethics”. This view is used to explain how the type of research described as proof of concept also provides an attendant proof of principle that is the result of decision-making that extends across practitioners, their tools, techniques, and the problem solving activities of other research groups.

Homology has been one of, if not the most, fecund concepts which has been used towards the understanding of the genomes of the model organisms. The evidence for this claim can be supported best with an examination of current research in comparative genomics. In comparative genomics, the information of genes or segments of the genome, and their location and sequence, are used to search for genes similar to them, known as 'homologues'. Homologues can be either within that same organism (paralogues), or among different species (orthologues). The importance in finding homologous genes within organisms or across species is that these similarities indicate the possibility of ascribing functions, mechanisms or structures which are required by a variety of species which present the same homology. The interest in structures and functions of genes and proteins common to multiple species is one of the main foci of comparative genomics. Because of this, research into the conservation of genes has been the basis of comparison with regards to homologous genes among diverse organisms. Different causal processes are involved in genetic pathways and mechanisms. Explanations of these depend upon which pathway, structure or mechanism is picked out. Each process has a different causal network to which different explanations refer. What comparative genomics explains are the different causal mechanisms which occur in processes such as differentiation, protein synthesis, and gene regulation. How these processes interact within the organism can only be understood when compared with organisms which possess homologous genes, gene sequences, similar developmental mechanisms, or those whose mechanisms for gene regulation are similar. Explanations which result from comparative genomics contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of both the complex structures and the diverse functions within the genomes of different organisms. There are two related problems which have plagued attempts to define the concept of homology. The first problem arises in clarifying what kind of similarity is involved in a homological comparison. A second problem occurs if more than one concept of homology is needed to pick out the kinds of similarity in different contexts of homological comparison. Homology is usually understood as picking out what counts as 'the same' between two or more organisms. Many of the attempts which have been made to define the concept of homology focus on which criteria are used to restrict the kinds of similarity which exist between two or more organisms or parts being compared. These are criteria which can be used reliably to infer shared ancestry. However, there have been many different attempts to define similarity which have produced a profusion of homology concepts. This profusion has led both to the conflation of what counts as 'the same' in different contexts and has also muddled the relations of comparison which various concepts use to identify homologues.