Jean Gayon

Knowledge of Life Today presents the thoughts of Jean Gayon, a major philosopher of science in France who is recognized across the Atlantic, especially for his work in philosophy and the history of life sciences. The book is structured around Gayon's personal answers to questions put forward by Victor Petit. This approach combines scientific rigor and risk-taking in answers that go back to the fundamentals of the subject. As well as the relationship between philosophy and the history of science, Gayon discusses the main questions of the history and philosophy of biology that marked his intellectual journey: Darwin, evolutionary biology, genetics and molecular biology, human evolution, and various aspects of the relationship between biology and society in contemporary times (racism, eugenics, biotechnology, biomedicine, etc.).

This book, originally published in French, examines the philosophical debates on functions over the last forty years and proposes new ways of analysis. Pervasive throughout the life sciences, the concept of function has the air of an epistemological scandal: ascribing a function to a biological structure or process amounts to suggesting that it is explained by its effects. This book confronts the debates on function with the use of the notion in a wide range of disciplines, such as biology, psychology, and medicine. It also raises the question of whether this notion, which is as old in the history of technology as it is in the life sciences, has the same meaning in these two domains.

This article shows how Lamarckism was essential in the birth of the French school of molecular biology. We argue that the concept of inheritance of acquired characters positively shaped debates surrounding bacteriophagy and lysogeny in the Pasteurian tradition during the interwar period. During this period the typical Lamarckian account of heredity treated it as the continuation of protoplasmic physiology in daughter cells. Félix d’Hérelle applied this conception to argue that there was only one species of bacteriophage and Jules Bordet applied it to develop an account of bacteriophagy as a transmissible form of autolysis and to analyze the new phenomenon of lysogeny. In a long-standing controversy with Bordet, Eugène Wollman deployed a more morphological understanding of the inheritance of acquired characters, yielding a particulate, but still Lamarckian, account of lysogeny. We then turn to André Lwoff who, with several colleagues, completed Wollman’s research program from 1949 to 1953. We examine how he gradually set aside the Lamarckian background, finally removing inheritance of acquired characters from the resulting account of bacteriophagy and lysogeny. In the conclusion, we emphasize the complex dual role of Lamarckism as it moved from an assumed explanatory framework to a challenge that the nascent molecular biology had to overcome.

Can the age-old practices of animal selection and breeding and the more recent biotechnological interventions on animals, far more intrusive and systematic than any present form of human enhancement, enlighten us as to the future of enhancement practices? This book explores issues raised by past and present practices of animal enhancement in terms of their means and their goals, clarifies conceptual issues and identifies lessons that can be learned about enhancement practices, as they concern both animals and humans. The extreme ambiguity of the claim that animals are being enhanced, the driving goals and strategies of third-party interests, but also the similarity of the substances and techniques used on humans and animals, suggest that human enhancement practices may be just as tainted by equivocal goals and strategies as equivalent practices with animals.

François Dagognet (1924-2015) nous a laissé une oeuvre immense et foisonnante : près de soixante-dix ouvrages, sur les thèmes les plus divers, de l'épistémologie à l'art contemporain, de la politique au droit, de l'argent à la morale, de la peau au trouble, sans oublier le paysage, ou l'agronomie, les déchets ou les musées, parmi bien d'autres sujets. Sa curiosité universelle et inassouvie égalait, voire dépassait, celle de son maître Bachelard. Montrer comment Dagognet a illustré l'épistémologie "à la française", et l'a radicalement transformée en la faisant sortir de ses cadres traditionnels, tel est l'enjeu de ce recueil, issu d'un colloque en hommage à François Dagognet qui s'est tenu à l'Institut d'histoire et philosophie des sciences et des techniques de Paris 1, qu'il a un temps dirigé. Vingt-quatre auteurs, français et étrangers, de diverses générations et spécialités, font découvrir et discutent les positions de ce philosophe infatigable sur un large éventail de champs scientifiques et techniques : philosophie des sciences, biologie, médecine, neurologie, pharmacie, sciences de la terre, chimie, écologie, théorie des formes, informatique, art, droit et philosophie sociale."--Page 4 of cover.

Les questions que le philosophe peut aujourd'hui se poser sur l'évolution sont de deux ordres. Les unes relèvent de la philosophic des sciences (de quel genre de science s'agit-il ?). Les autres regardent la philosophic en général: dans quelle mesure l'évolution conduit-elle à réexaminer certaines grandes questions philosophiques traditionnelles, comme celles des fondements de l'épistémologie (théorie de la connaissance) et de l'éthique ? The questions a philosopher may raise today about evolution are twofold : on the one hand they may refer to the philosophy of science (what kind of a science is it ?). On the other hand, they may refer to philosophy as such : in what way does evolution lead one to reexamine a few traditional philosophical question as that of the foundations of epistemology (a theory of knowledge) and ethics ?

Literally speaking, "Philosophy of biology" is a rather old expression. William Whewell coined it in 1840, at the very time he introduced the expression "philosophy of science". Whewell was fond of creating neologisms, like Auguste Comte, his French counterpart in the field of the philosophical reflection about science. Historians of science know that a few years earlier, in 1834, Whewell had generated a small scandal when he proposed the word "scientist" as a general term by which "the students of the knowledge of the material world" could describe themselves, and distinguish themselves from artists. The term "philosopher", Whewell argued, was too wide. A new generic term, more or less equivalent to the French term "savant", was needed in order to prevent the disintegration of science that seemed to flow from its specialization in modern times.1 When Whewell first introduced the terms "philosophy of science" and "philosophy of biology" in his 1840 Philosophy of the inductive sciences, the latter term was merely a special branch of "philosophy of science". The expression "philosophy of science" itself had two justifications: firstly, this phrase expressed the idea that "science" remained cognitively coherent enough to justify a critical enquiry into its methodological unity and its foundation; secondly, the phrase "philosophy of science" was required in order to distinguish a properly "philosophical" enquiry from a "historical" approach to science. Although Whewell's 1840 Philosophy of the inductive sciences 2 had approximately the same chapter structure as his 1837 History of the Inductive Sciences 3 (that is, a series of chapters successively devoted to the concept of science in general, and although there was considerable overlap between the contents of the two books, then to particular sciences), its theoretical purpose was different. Clearly, Whewell was not willing to confuse the genres of history and philosophy as Auguste Comte had done in his 1830 Cours de philosophie positive.4 Note also that the word "biology" was still extremely rare in English when Whewell used it in 1840. In fact, Whewell's 1837 History of the Inductive Sciences does not make use of the word "biology": Whewell successively examines "botany", "zoology", "physiology" and "comparative antomy" as special branches of "analytico-classificatory science", then discusses palaeontology as a special case of the "palaeo-etiological sciences". Three years later, in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Whewell does use "biology" as a generic term for all the sciences dealing with life. The various sciences which were separately examined in the previous book are now collectively considered. Furthermore, the main philosophical problem raised by biology is its dual nature: biology is both nomological and a historical science. Modern philosophers of biology are generally unaware of the story of the origins of the expression "philosophy of biology", but Whewell's dual theoretical nature of biology is still a major concern for modern "philosophy of biology"