Janella Baxter

Waters’s (2007) actual difference making and Weber’s (2013, 2017) biological normality approaches to causal selection have received many criticisms, some of which miss their target. Disagreement about whether Waters’s and Weber’s views succeed in providing criteria that uniquely singles out the gene as explanatorily significant in biology has led philosophers to overlook a prior problem. Before one can address whether Waters’s and Weber’s views successfully account for the explanatory significance of genes, one must ask whether either view satisfactorily meets the necessary conditions for causal selection in the first place. An adequate defense of causal selection must meet two desiderata. First, there must be an explanatory property that sets some causes apart from others. Second, the property identified must be one that is recognized by biologists as relevant to their domain(s) of inquiry. I argue that both fall short of meeting the second condition. I demonstrate this by showing how many of the biological technologies crucial to experimentation do not fit either view very well. I offer a more adequate proposal that accommodates non-actual and artificial causal variables. A consequence of my view is the following: When analyzing the causal selection practices of biologists, philosophers should consider the explanatory targets relevant to a research program – including ones whose explanans must appeal to biological technologies. I then explain how this proposal can inform the existing debate between Weber (2017) and Griffiths et al. (2015).

Model organisms, the use of green fluorescent proteins, and orthogonal transfer RNA are examples of artificial causes being used in biology. Recent work characterizing the research interests of biologists in terms of a common set of values has ruled out artificial causes as biologically interesting. For instance, Kenneth Waters argues that biologists are primarily interested in causes that actually obtain. Similarly, Marcel Weber argues that biologists are primarily concerned with biologically normal interventions. Both views express a widely received attitude about the interests and goals of biologists as being primarily concerned with the contingent facts of our world. While I agree with this general attitude about the contingent nature of biology, I argue that neither view fully accounts for the diversity that distinguishes the discipline. Along with actual and biologically normal causes, biologists are also interested in artificial causes for technological and observational purposes. I maintain that research interest in artificial causes provides some pragmatic reasons for thinking that research programs in cellular biology aren’t driven by a common core set of values.

Eugene V. Koonin argues that fundamental research of CRISPR-Cas mechanisms has illuminated “fundamental principles of genome manipulation.” Koonin's discussion provides important philosophical insights for how we should understand the significance of CRISPR-Cas systems. Yet the analysis he provides is only part of a larger story. There is also a human element to the CRISPR-Cas story that concerns its development as a technology. Accounting for this part of CRISPR's history reveals that the story Koonin provides requires greater nuance. I'll show how CRISPR-Cas technologies are not “natural” genome editing systems, but artifacts of human ingenuity. Furthermore, I'll argue that the story of CRISPR-Cas is not “primarily about research into fundamental biological mechanisms”, but is instead about the intertwining of applied and fundamental research programs.

In the fall of 2018 Jiankui He shocked the international community with the following announcement: two female babies, “Lulu” and “Nana,” whose germlines had been modified by the cutting edge, yet profoundly unsafe CRISPR-Cas9 technology had been born. This event galvanized policy makers and scientists to advocate for more explicit and firm regulation of human germline gene editing. Recent policy proposals attempt to integrate safety considerations and public input to identify specific types of diseases that may be safe targets for human GGE. This paper argues these policy proposals are inadequate in different ways. While Sarkar intends to incorporate input from the disability community for the purpose of deciding the value of human GGE, I argue that his strategy for doing so is inadequate. I’ll argue that an iterative, deliberative process is a more appropriate framework for allowing the disability community to inform policy on human GGE. Further policy proposals have been framed in terms of monogenetic or single-gene diseases. I argue that this way of conceptualizing disease is not what matters for deciding which disorders are viable candidates for human GGE. Instead, what matters is that the disease in question must have genes that have a high degree of causal control with respect to the disease and alternative nucleic acid sequences variants that are likely to produce traits deemed desirable must be identified. Previous policy proposals leave unspecified. What conditions must be met for satisfying condition should not be left to individual scientists to decide for themselves. The present proposal offers some guidance on this issue.

The new gene-editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9, been described as “revolutionary” This paper takes up the question of what sense, if any, might this be true and why it matters. I draw from the history and philosophy of technology to develop two types of technological revolutions, 1985). One type of revolution involves a technology that enables users to change a generatively entrenched structure. The other type involves a technology that works within a generatively entrenched structure, but as a result of incremental improvement becomes the “new normal” technology for a community, 1985). In what follows, I argue that if CRISPR-Cas9 is revolutionary at all – and I do not take a stand on the issue – it is in becoming the “new normal” molecular technology across biology labs. By contrast, a technology that has the potential of being revolutionary in Wimsatt’s sense is the orthogonal tRNA technique developed by Peter Schultz’ synthetic biology lab. Whether or not CRSIPR-Cas9 or the orthogonal tRNA technologies are revolutionary, I propose to treat these two types of putative revolutions as distinct types of technological innovation. I argue further that observing distinctions between types of technological innovation can be useful for tracking the epistemic and normative consequences that technology raises.

Numerous scholarly works focus solely on scientific metaphysics or biological practice, but few attempt to bridge the two subjects. This volume, the latest in the Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science series, explores what a scientific metaphysics grounded in biological practices could look like and how it might impact the way we investigate the world around us. From Biological Practice to Scientific Metaphysics examines how to reconcile the methods of biological practice with the methods of metaphysical cosmology, notably regarding the origins of life. The contributors take up a wide range of traditional metaphysics and philosophy of science topics, including natural kinds, medicine, ecology, genetics, scientific pluralism, reductionism, operationalism, mechanisms, the nature of information, and more. Many of the chapters represent the first philosophical treatments of significant biological practices. From causality and complexity to niche constructions and inference, the contributors review and discuss long-held objections to metaphysics by natural scientists. They illuminate how, in order to learn about the world as it truly is, we must look not only at what scientists say but also what they do: for ontology cannot be read directly from scientific claims.