Melinda Bonnie Fagan

I propose a conceptual framework aimed at non-expert understanding of immunity and the immune system. Such an account is needed, to replace the prevailing public view that human immune systems can be evaluated in terms of “strong” versus “weak” defenses against disease. While accessible to common-sense, the prevailing view encourages misunderstanding, contributes to pressing social problems, and is incompatible with our best current scientific and philosophical understanding of immunity. Building on my earlier work on context-dependent understanding, I motivate a new conceptual framework for understanding of immunity that is accessible to non-experts (i.e., non-technical), engages and respects everyday experience, addresses concerns about bodily autonomy and control, and reflects our best scientific and philosophical theories about immunity and the immune system. Importantly, this conceptual approach treats non-expert understanding as epistemically beneficial in its own right, arising from a two-way mutualistic relation between expert and non-expert perspectives. The result is a simple conceptual framework consisting of three core ideas: immunity is yours, efficient, and specific (YES). The YES schema is compatible with current insights from theoretical immunology and can help address current social problems associated with vaccine skepticism and hesitancy. I conclude with some implications of this view for recent philosophical accounts of understanding.

I propose a conceptual framework aimed at non-expert understanding of immunity and the immune system. Such an account is needed, to replace the prevailing public view that human immune systems can be evaluated in terms of “strong” vs. “weak” defenses against disease. While accessible to common-sense, the prevailing view encourages misunderstanding, contributes to pressing social problems, and is incompatible with our best current scientific and philosophical understanding of immunity. Building on my earlier work on context-dependent understanding, I motivate a new conceptual framework for non-expert understanding of immunity that is accessible to non-experts (i.e., non-technical), engages and respects everyday experience, addresses concerns about bodily autonomy and control, and reflects our best scientific and philosophical theories about immunity and the immune system. Importantly, this conceptual approach treats non-expert understanding as epistemically beneficial in its own right, arising from a two-way mutualistic relation between expert and non-expert perspectives. The result is a simple conceptual framework consisting of three core ideas: immunity is yours, efficient, and specific (YES). The YES schema is compatible with current insights from theoretical immunology and can help address current social problems associated with vaccine skepticism and hesitancy. I conclude with some implications of this view for recent philosophical accounts of understanding.

Cells are often considered biological individuals. In particular, cells of multicellular organisms (the paradigmatic biological individuals) satisfy at least some major criteria for biological individuality. This chapter considers the biological individuality of stem cells: undifferentiated cells that self-renew and give rise to differentiated cells. It argues that stem cells are not biological individuals in the same way as _cells of_ multicellular organisms, but some stem cells at least are biological individuals in the way of multicellular organisms. In this argument, the general definition of “stem cell” is conceived as an abstract model. This approach sheds light on central concepts and practices of stem cell biology, as well as the relation between cell and organismal individuality. The stem cell case also exhibits an unexpected parallel with physics, specifically Bohr’s view of complementarity.

The chapter asks whether scientific rationality is to be located at the level of individual scientists or at the level of group belief. It starts by examining scientific knowledge as a candidate for irreducible group belief. Beliefs are frequently attributed to the scientific community. Think, for example, of the claim that the physics community now believes that the Higgs boson has been observed. Note that in this example, the belief is attributed to a large, diverse, and geographically separated community of physicists. The chapter considers various arguments for and against the proposition that groups have irreducible scientific knowledge. But ultimately, she concludes that the crucial issue is not who possesses such knowledge, but how the knowledge is produced. Her contribution takes a significant step toward understanding the dynamic process by which individuals both rely upon and change the body of established scientific knowledge. It concludes that the traditional individualistic view of scientific knowledge is vindicated, whereas production of scientific knowledge is an irreducibly collective process.

Stem cell biology and systems biology are two prominent new approaches to studying cell development. In stem cell biology, the predominant method is experimental manipulation of concrete cells and tissues. Systems biology, in contrast, emphasizes mathematical modeling of cellular systems. For scientists and philosophers interested in development, an important question arises: how should the two approaches relate? This essay proposes an answer, using the model of Waddington’s landscape to triangulate between stem cell and systems approaches. This simple abstract model represents development as an undulating surface of hills and valleys. Originally constructed by C. H. Waddington to visually explicate an integrated theory of genetics, development and evolution, the landscape model can play an updated unificatory role. I examine this model’s structure, representational assumptions, and uses in all three contexts, and argue that explanations of cell development require both mathematical models and concrete experiments. On this view, the two approaches are interdependent, with mathematical models playing a crucial but circumscribed role in explanations of cell development

Sarah Franklin’s Biological relatives: IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship and Charis Thompson’s Good science: the ethical choreography of stem cell research, examine recently normalized biotechnologies. Franklin’s monograph extends her previous work on in vitro fertilization , deconstructing the success of a technology that, she argues, has grown “curiouser and curiouser” while taking hold in scientific and social life. IVF in its diverse aspects becomes a lens for scrutinizing our ambivalence about new technology, which Franklin articulates by putting disparate literatures into conversation: feminist science studies, political economy, fine art, and more. Thompson’s Good science focuses more concretely on the first decade of human pluripotent stem cell research, tracing the field from the innovation of cultured human embryonic stem cells through Bush-era policy debates, to current acceptance of stem cell research as a part of the scientific and policy landscape. Th ..

Many explanations in molecular biology, neuroscience, and other fields of experimental biology describe mechanisms underlying phenomena of interest. These mechanistic explanations account for higher-level phenomena in terms of causally active parts and their spatiotemporal organization. What makes such a mechanistic description explanatory? The best-developed answer, Craver's causal-mechanical account, has several weaknesses. It does not fully explicate the target of explanation, interlevel relation, or interactive nonmodular character of many biological mechanisms as we understand them. An alternative account of MEx, emphasizing interdependence among a mechanism's components, remedies these difficulties.

Immunology is a notoriously complex field with distinct concepts and terminology. Yet immunologists regularly and effectively collaborate with other researchers, notably clinicians and experts in population health. How does such ‘collaboration without convergence’ work? This paper offers an answer. Immunology exhibits three features that support collaboration in the absence of major consensus on theories, methods, or concepts. These are: a multifaceted target of inquiry, therapeutic aspirations, and a clear interdisciplinary pathway. Building on these features, I sketch a general account of “low-effort interdisciplinarity” and connect this result to recent work on population health.

Examining stem cell biology from a philosophy of science perspective, this book clarifies the field's central concept, the stem cell, as well as its aims, methods, models, explanations and evidential challenges. The first chapters discuss what stem cells are, how experiments identify them, and why these two issues cannot be completely separated. The basic concepts, methods and structure of the field are set out, as well as key limitations and challenges. The second part of the book shows how rigorous explanations emerge from stem cell experiments, and compares these to other kinds of scientific explanation. Model organisms, the role of genes, and the significance of collaboration are also discussed. The last part of the book considers relations to systems biology and clinical medicine, arguing that both the mathematical models of the former, and ethical principles of the latter, are necessary for stem cell biology to deliver on its promises.

What is a stem cell? The answer is seemingly obvious: a cell that is also a stem, or point of origin, for something else. Upon closer examination, however, this combination of ideas leads directly to fundamental questions about biological development. A cell is a basic category of living thing; a fundamental 'unit of life.' A stem is a site of growth; an active source that supports or gives rise to something else. Both concepts are deeply rooted in biological thought, with rich and complex histories. The idea of a stem cell unites them, but the union is neither simple nor straightforward. This book traces the origins of the stem cell concept, its use in stem cell research today, and implications of the idea for stem cell experiments, their concrete results, and hoped-for clinical advances.

I have previously argued that stem cell experiments cannot demonstrate that a single cell is a stem cell. Laplane and others dispute this claim, citing experiments that identify stem cells at the single-cell level. This paper rebuts the counterexample, arguing that the alleged ‘crucial stem cell experiments’ do not measure self-renewal for a single cell, do not establish a single cell’s differentiation potential, and, if interpreted as providing results about single cells, fall into epistemic circularity. I then discuss the source of the dispute, locating it in differences between philosophical and experimental perspectives.

What things count as individuals, and how do we individuate them? It is a classic philosophical question often tackled from the perspective of analytic metaphysics. This volume proposes that there is another channel by which to approach individuation -- from that of scientific practices. From this perspective, the question then becomes: How do scientists individuate things and, therefore, count them as individuals? This volume collects the work of philosophers of science to engage with this central philosophical conundrum from a new angle, highlighting the crucial topic of experimental individuation and building upon recent, pioneering work in the philosophy of science. An introductory chapter foregrounds the problem of individuation, arguing it should be considered prior to the topic of individuality. The following chapters address individuation and individuality from a variety of perspectives, with prominent themes being the importance of experimentation, individuation as a process, and pluralism in individuation's criteria. Contributions examine individuation in a wide range of sciences, including stem cell biology, particle physics, and community ecology. Other chapters examine the metaphysics of individuation, its bearing on realism/antirealism debates, and interrogate epistemic aspects of individuation in scientific practice. In exploring individuation from the philosophy of biology, physics, and other scientific subjects, this volume ultimately argues for the possibility of several criteria of individuation, upending the tenets of traditional metaphysics. It provides insights for philosophers of science, but also for scientists interested in the conceptual foundations of their work.

Ontologies of living things are increasingly grounded on the concepts and practices of current life science. Biological development is a process, undergone by living things, which begins with a single cell and (in an important class of cases) ends with formation of a multicellular organism. The process of development is thus prima facie central for ideas about biological individuality and organismality. However, recent accounts of these concepts do not engage developmental biology. This paper aims to fill the gap, proposing the lineage view of stem cells as an ontological framework for conceptualizing organismal development. This account is grounded on experimental practices of stem cell research, with emphasis on new techniques for generating biological organization in vitro. On the lineage view, a stem cell is the starting point of a cell lineage with a specific organismal source, time-interval of existence, and ‘tree topology’ of branch-points linking the stem to developmental termini. The concept of ‘enkapsis’ accommodates the cell-organism relation within the lineage view; this hierarchical notion is further explicated by considering the methods and results of stem cell experiments. Results of this examination include a (partial) characterization of stem cells’ developmental versatility, and the context-dependence of developmental processes involving stem cells.

Science is increasingly interdisciplinary, as evidenced by empirical measures, funding initiatives, and the rise of integrative fields such as systems biology and cognitive neuroscience. In this paper, I motivate and outline an account of explanation for interdisciplinary contexts, building on recent debates about scientific perspectivism. Insights from these debates yield an inclusive list of relations between models constructed from different perspectives, which I then refine and generalize into a simple taxonomy. Within this taxonomy of relations among models, I identify the set of relations applicable to interdisciplinary contexts, discuss concepts of unification associated with each, and introduce three further constraints which furnish norms for this variety of explanation. Finally, I discuss implications of this account for a recent debate about understanding and explanation. One important consequence of my view is that explanation in interdisciplinary contexts and understanding of individual agents in those contexts are not equivalent.

This paper aims to bring the epistemic dimensions of stem cell experiments out of the background, and show that they can be critically evaluated. After introducing some basic concepts of stem cell biology, I set out the current “gold standard” for experimental success in that field (§2). I then trace the origin of this standard to a 1988 controversy over blood stem cells (§3). Understanding the outcome of this controversy requires attention to the details of experimental techniques, the organization of epistemic communities, and relations between the two (§4). With its resolution, a standard for experimental success was established for HSC research, which in turn serves as an exemplar for studies of other stem cells. This historical case study reveals a robust standard for experimental success in stem cell biology: to trace processes of development at the single-cell level, in the form of cell lineage hierarchies. Experiments conforming to this standard can be further critically assessed as means to the therapeutic end of stem cell research: use of stem cells to repair human organs and tissues.

Evolutionary systems biology (ESB) aims to integrate methods from systems biology and evolutionary biology to go beyond the current limitations in both fields. This article clarifies some conceptual difficulties of this integration project, and shows how they can be overcome. The main challenge we consider involves the integration of evolutionary biology with developmental dynamics, illustrated with two examples. First, we examine historical tensions between efforts to define general evolutionary principles and articulation of detailed mechanistic explanations of specific traits. Next, these tensions are further clarified by considering a recent case from another field focused on developmental dynamics: stem cell biology. In the stem cell case, incompatible explanatory aims block integration. Experimental approaches aim at mechanistic explanation while dynamical system models offer explanation in terms of general principles. We then discuss an ESB case in which integration succeeds: search for general attractors using a dynamical systems framework synergizes with the experimental search for detailed mechanisms. Contrasts between the positive and negative cases suggest general lessons for achieving an integrated understanding of developmental and evolutionary dynamics. The key integrative move is to acknowledge two complementary aims, both relevant to explanation: identifying the space of possible dynamic states and trajectories, and mechanistic understanding of causal interactions underlying a specific phenomenon of interest. These two aims can support one another in a joint project characterizing dynamic aspects of evolving lineages. This more inclusive project can lead to insights that cannot be reached by either approach in isolation.

Philosophy of scientific practice aims to critically evaluate as well as describe scientific inquiry. Epistemic norms are required for such evaluation. Social constructivism is widely thought to oppose this critical project. I argue, however, that one variety of social constructivism, focused on epistemic justification, can be a basis for critical epistemology of scientific practice, while normative accounts that reject this variety of social constructivism cannot., idealized epistemic norms cannot ground effective critique of our practices. I propose a new approach, placing SCj within a general framework of social action theory. This framework can be used to explicate epistemic norms implicit in our scientific practices. *Received July 2009; revised July 2009. †To contact the author, please write to: MS 14, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251‐1892; e‐mail: [email protected]

It is widely assumed that mechanistic explanations are causal explanations. Many prominent new mechanists endorse interventionism as the correct analysis of explanatory causal models in biology and other fields. This article argues that interventionism is not entirely satisfactory in this regard. A case study of Jacob and Monod’s operon model shows that at least some important mechanistic explanations in biology present significant contrasts with the interventionist account. This result motivates a more inclusive approach to mechanistic explanation, allowing for noncausal aspects.

Philosophical debates about collective scientific knowledge concern two distinct theses: (1) groups are necessary to produce scientific knowledge, and (2) groups have scientific knowledge in their own right. Thesis (1) has strong support. Groups are required, in many cases of scientific inquiry, to satisfy methodological norms, to develop theoretical concepts, or to validate the results of inquiry as scientific knowledge. So scientific knowledge‐production is collective in at least three respects. However, support for (2) is more equivocal. Though some examples suggest that groups have scientific knowledge independently of their individual members, these cases are also explained in terms of relational complexes of members’ beliefs.

Stem cells are defined as having capacities for both self-renewal and differentiation. Many different entities satisfy this working definition. I show that this general stem cell concept is relative to a cell lineage, temporal duration, and characters of interest. Experiments specify values for these variables. So claims about stem cells must be understood in terms of experimental methods used to identify them. Furthermore, the stem cell concept imposes evidential constraints on interpretation of experimental results. From these constraints, it follows that claims about stem cell capacities are inherently uncertain. This result has important implications for stem cell research