著者
中尾 央
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.7, pp.27-48, 2013-02-28

For the last three decades, the gene-centrism have been criticized not only in philosophy of biology but also in some other scientific fields. Evolutionary developmental biology, ecological developmental biology, and medicine have emphasized "epigenetics" (i.e., researches on epigenetic interactions) to explain novelties or variations of traits, and some argue that epigenetic researches are a kind of "revolution" against the gene-centrism. A stronger criticism can be found in developmental systems theory: Some advocators argue that we cannot determine the specific causes of trait formation, and that the gene-centrism is cleary wrong. This article focuses on researches on genomic information especially in medicine and argues that we should distinguish between empirical and methodological gene-centrism, and the latter can be still defended. Actually there have been discovered many statistically relevant genes for some specific diseases especially in genome-wide association studies, and they promote further epigenetic or developmental studies, suggesting that methodological gene-centrism is useful in these cases.
著者
中尾 央
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.7, pp.27-48, 2013-02-28

For the last three decades, the gene-centrism have been criticized not only in philosophy of biology but also in some other scientific fields. Evolutionary developmental biology, ecological developmental biology, and medicine have emphasized "epigenetics" (i.e., researches on epigenetic interactions) to explain novelties or variations of traits, and some argue that epigenetic researches are a kind of "revolution" against the gene-centrism. A stronger criticism can be found in developmental systems theory: Some advocators argue that we cannot determine the specific causes of trait formation, and that the gene-centrism is cleary wrong. This article focuses on researches on genomic information especially in medicine and argues that we should distinguish between empirical and methodological gene-centrism, and the latter can be still defended. Actually there have been discovered many statistically relevant genes for some specific diseases especially in genome-wide association studies, and they promote further epigenetic or developmental studies, suggesting that methodological gene-centrism is useful in these cases.
著者
中尾 央
出版者
京都大学
雑誌
特別研究員奨励費
巻号頁・発行日
2009

本年度は交付申請書でも記載したように,遺伝子と文化の二重継承節(Robert BoydやPeter Richerson),ミーム論(Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins),また心のモジュール説に基づいた文化の疫学モデル(Dan Sperber, Scott Atran)などを主に検討した.その検討の結果,これらが互いに対立するものではなく,むしろ補完し合うものであることを明らかにしてきた,これらの研究や(進化心理学や人間行動生態学に関する)前年度の研究をあわせて,これまで人間行動の進化的研究に関して提唱されてきた様々な研究プログラムは,部分的な修正を加えることによっておおむね両立しうるものであることが示された。これらの研究成果はこれまであまり明確な形で行われてこなかったものであり,その意味では意義ある成果であると言える(論文は,現在印刷中で来年度以降に出版予定である).また,本年度においては,これらの研究プログラムでは補いきれない部分にも着目し,研究を進めてきた,その一つが文化の系統学的アプローチである.他にも文化や人間行動の進化にとって重要な役割を果たすであろう(がこれまではあまり注目されてこなかった)教育や罰の進化について,より具体的な研究も進めつつある.前者については生物体系学者の三中信宏氏と共編で論文集を企画し,また後者については,2010年9月から2011年3月にかけて,ピッツバーグ大学科学史科学哲学科を訪問し,Edouard Macheryと共同で研究を行った.これらの研究はまだ明確な成果を残せていないが,来年以降には論文や発表などにおいて,成果を残すことができるだろう
著者
中尾 央
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.4, pp.45-64, 2010-02-28

This paper partly defends and partly criticizes Sterelny's maneuver on the meme's-eye view through comparison with Blackmore, Dennett, and Distin's arguments. His maneuver consists of two parts: the coevolution of memes and us, and meme's usefulness and modularity. I argue that Sterelny's maneuver is partly successful in that the coevolution of memes and us can defend the meme's-eye view against the claim that memes are unnecessary for the explanation of cultural evolution, comparing this first part of the maneuver with Blackmore and Dennett's "memetic drive". Moreover, Sterelny argues that meme's usefulness and modularity can also save the meme's-eye view and are important for memetic evolution. While defending the latter view referring to Distin's arguments, I argue that these properties can be explained in terms of our cognitive and social environments, therefore we cannot use these properties when defending the meme's-eye view. Finally, by considering whether the modified version of Sterelny's maneuver can be applied to other cases or not, I investigate the future of the meme's-eye view.