M. Polo Camacho

This paper seeks to bring two disparate areas of research into conversation with each other: 1) philosophy of biology on conceptions of organismality, and 2) environmental ethics on the determination of bearers of value. We believe that environmental ethics, as a field invested in the value of beings beyond the human, can benefit from work focused on determining organismality. In this paper, we take algal systems as our engine of thought and argue for an eliminativist position that organisms as individuals do not exist; instead, we propose that organisms are constellations of processes. Conceptions of organismality, however, do capture something about the world, and so our eliminativism gives way to a realist eliminative pluralism about organismality; in other words, we argue that accepting different conceptions of organismality does not lead to relativism, because different conceptions of organismality capture different features of life, broadly understood. This eliminative pluralism can ultimately aid us in ethically attending to the more-than-human world around us.

According to Denis Noble, one of the greatest illusions of the Modern Synthesis is embodied in the Central Dogma, a principle first formulated by Francis Crick in 1958. The principle holds that DNA makes protein, not the other way around. For Noble, the Dogma has contributed to the illusion that genes alone are responsible for the development and evolution of an organism’s phenotype. Though I am largely sympathetic to Noble’s critique, I argue that there may be alternative grounds for accepting the plausibility of the Central Dogma and also the illusion it perpetuates.

There is no denying the Central Dogma’s impact on the biological sciences. Since the Dogma’s formulation by Francis Crick in 1958, however, many have debated the Dogma’s empirical adequacy. My aim is to move beyond these discussions, and instead consider the Central Dogma’s significance to contemporary biological practice. To do this, I consider four distinct approaches for determining the non-descriptive methodological significance of a scientific principle. I argue that these approaches fail to vindicate the Central Dogma, and that, under many of these approaches, the Dogma amounts to a triviality.

The Central Dogma of molecular biology, which holds that DNA makes protein and not the other way around, is as influential as it is controversial. Some believe the Dogma has outlived its usefulness, either because it fails to fully capture the ins-and-outs of protein synthesis (Griffiths and Stotz, 2013; Stotz, 2006), because it turns on a confused notion of information (Sarkar, 2004), or because it problematically assumes the unidirectional flow of information from DNA to protein (Gottlieb, 2001). This paper evaluates an underexplored defense of the Dogma, which relies on the assumption that the Dogma and the Inheritance of Acquired Traits, a principle which dates as far back as Jean Baptiste-Lamarck, are incompatible principles (Smith, 1993; Judson, 1979; Dawkins, 1970; Cobb, 2017; Wilkins, 2002; Graur, 2018). By appealing to empirical evidence in molecular science, I argue that this apparent incompatibility is indeed merely apparent. I conclude by briefly demonstrating how these considerations bear on the topic of conceptual pluralism in the philosophy of science (Stencel and Proszewska, 2018; Lu and Bourrat, 2018).

Roughly, the Central Dogma of molecular biology states that DNA codes for protein, not the other way around. This principle, which is still heralded as an important element of contemporary biological theory, has received much critical attention since its original formulation by Francis Crick in 1958. Some have argued that the principle should be rejected, on the grounds that it fails to fully capture the ins-and-outs of protein synthesis, while others have argued that the Dogma is predicated on notions of information that are simply implausible. Yet, despite all this criticism, there is much about the Dogma that has not been said. Existing discussions, for example, gloss over the many distinct, logically independent readings of the Central Dogma that have been defended in the philosophical and biological literature, making it difficult to see which dogma is being criticized. Additionally, this oversight makes it unclear what the overall upshot of these discussions should be taken to be. My aim in this paper is to fix this.