PROCESSES OF LIFE; ESSAYS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY

This collection of papers summarises the experience of one of the leading philosophers of biology, John Dupré [1]. The sixteen originally separate papers aim to provide gentle entry points into various aspects of his work. We can provide here only a précis of some of the themes, and suggest some overall implications. Dupré aims here to survey the great range of recent developments in biological studies that have entirely outmoded the usual views of journalists, commentators, and the general public in this area. And indeed, many of those who consider themselves to be scientists. He also challenges the common wider perception of 'Science' as a way of thinking fit to replace all others. In order to make things clear, I have had to simplify and possibly exaggerate his disagreements with current views, which he presents in a much more courteous and gentle way. I will first summarise the views that Dupré challenges by stating his position as I understand it in relation to each concept. I use the word delusion to point up his views. The delusion of a unified 'science' Science is not the one unified truth about the world but 'truth' from a particular perspective, answering a certain set of questions, often serving a particular set of interests. Dupré prefers to to consider science as a non-unified collection of methods, each to be employed as a working hypotheses in a particular area of work. The delusion of reductionism Dupré produces a wealth of evidence to show that Biology cannot be explained by the procedures of Chemistry or Physics. For example, a particular microbe might become dangerous in one part of the human body while it may be essential to correct functioning in another part of the same body. Reductionism would ignore all evidence such as this for non-scientific reasons. In any case, the foundational physics theory that many consider to be the bedrock of their belief has become confused in the conflict between believers in and questioners of quantum theory [2]. The delusion of natural laws There are no such things as general laws that 'govern' reality. These 'laws' are simply limited models of a process, a 'rule of thumb' to aid thinking. Laws approximate to a reality that we cannot take in in full detail. Such laws (simplifications) are not discovered but invented for particular purposes at particular times. The same simple model/law may be useful elsewhere at other times, so it comes to be relied on, believed in, told to other people, and becomes the truth itself. Scientific 'laws' are usually confused with man-made legal principles. The delusion of separate genes Many researchers and most of the public still believe that the unique DNA code of a particular human, their genome, specifies their future development in every detail. Scientists clump the DNA into separate short lengths that they call genes; each of which, they believe, defines some particular characteristic of that person. For example, some may even think that there is a gene for 'race'. Not so: race is defined by someone in power, it is a "reified residue of racism". The delusion of separate organisms Most of us probably have believed that each species of life is distinct. But there is no such thing as a discrete organism that can be defined and studied in isolation. We exist in symbiosis with a vast number of other life forms with which we are inextricably linked. We have not left them behind in our evolution into superior beings, but totally and continually rely on them for our continuing life[3]. No living cells exist in isolation, they are always part of a multi-cellular community. All animals, including us, are composites of bacteria, archaea and higher forms of life. You could even define humans as the fermenters necessary to sustain their accompanying array of microbes. Soil is the most complex assemblage of genomes, all of which are necessary to make possible the growth of the plants on which we all depend. The symbiosis between us, plants and soil removes the boundary between plant and non-plant. The delusion of separation between life and non-life What is life? Many say that viruses are not alive. But Lederburg [4] says that viruses are 'part of a whole organic life'. There is no unique way of separating out individuals. For example, problems for different life forms in our gut directly affect our digestion and therefore our overall 'health'. Life and non-life forms share a huge area that buffers and makes more complex any account of either. But it all depends on collaboration, not competition. The delusion of a simple science of human development Human development requires the confluence of many different resources. Present day living provides each individual with a custom-built niche, with essential support from items created by society. Can any recent child survive without a mobile phone? The genome, the DNA belonging to a particular organism is not a 'Blueprint of life'. The genome is being altered by other local influences throughout the time it is being used to build the body. A raw genome on its own may be useful in Forensics, where we look for black or white answers, like finger-print matching, but not much otherwise. Questions about Sociology and Evolutionary Psychology We might think that Sociology should be about human nature, but E.O. Wilson [5] replaced it with Sociobiology and claimed that evolutionary biology would explain all. Then Sociobiology was rebranded as Evolutionary Psychology, which claimed that cognitive processes evolved about 10,000 years ago in the Stone Age, and have not developed since. There can be no evidence for this, we were not there. This theory and much current resulting work seems to be mired in NeoDarwinian concepts which are now discarded. Signs of new life: newer ways of looking Metagenomics is a new field of study, in which genetic material is recovered directly from samples in normal surroundings. Such work reveals that the vast majority of microbial biodiversity has been missed by conventional cultivation-based methods. The aim now is to get unbiased samples of all genes from all the members of the sampled community. The new method of enquiry is called the Developmental Systems Perspective. This recognises that much more than the passage of genes is needed to build a new generation. Susan Oyama provides the classic definition [6]. The study of epigenetics [7] is increasingly important. It stresses that the genome (DNA) present in an egg defines a future process rather than a static object. The genome is wound in complex shapes that change as the organism develops. The genome is not a blueprint, but it participates in the complex development process which produces the living thing. There is a conflict between the need to reproduce accurately, and yet to remain viable in a changing environment. This all has to happen much faster than 'evolution' of DNA by random 'chance', whatever that may mean. So the DNA, together with so much other material passed on to our siblings may be modified by the current environment of the organism. The idea of a particular species finding a ready-made niche in which to prosper undergoes heavy modification. As soon as any organism finds somewhere to prosper, it continually develops and improves that niche. And the niche modifies the occupant. For each human niche, cultural evolution becomes more and more important in maintaining that niche. Implications for medicine Each human may have a unique DNA lineage, but our development is continually modified by our environment until our death. Our original DNA may be specially significant in some analyses, but not in others. Human responses to a drug will be highly dependent on the response of all microbial colonies in the gut. Yet 'evidence-based tests' on the efficacy of drugs continue to be done in vitro, isolated from those colonies. So such measurements may be reporting on less than 1% of our environment. See the NIH website for more up-to-date work [8]. Which department of medicine should deal with cancers? Is it really a mainly genetic disease, in the family, or more epigenetic? Can most cancers be linked to diet? Our accompanying microbes can respond far faster than our DNA to the unwanted proliferation of cancer cells. Maybe even viruses could help in cancer treatment. Implications beyond biology Dupré says that Science is primarily a social activity. It is essentially collaborative, involving many minds. So original research is a illusion, since it depends on all the previous learning of the individual from all previous knowledge they have encountered. Social beliefs are embedded into Science. For example, you cannot discuss mental health without assuming how people ought to behave, which is itself an ethical and moral posture. Any way of classifying natural objects is not discovered: the process of classification is designed to serve a human purpose. There is much embedded value in Science. For example, the idea that the cost of living index measures 'inflation' objectively: it is actually a political weapon, with those in power choosing what prices to take into account in the calculation... Conclusions for us all to consider Dupré's work questions many of the more general concepts in science that are presently tacitly assumed by journalists and their public. He suggests that large tracts of science need to look to their root assumptions. No clear cause of anything We need to abandon the assumption of causal completeness everywhere. Things don't happen because of the universal reign of some imagined law. And now we need to consider downward causation, from complex life downwards and we cannot identify causes as merely neural states of the brain. No such thing as human nature This is human nature as a fixed quality of all humans. For each individual, development is a process starting with fertilisation and continuing to death, tracing a unique path through life, as also does every other organism. For humans, cultural changes are now far more important than DNA origination. For example: the possession of Y(male) chromosome, makes the likelihood of violent behaviour more than five times great than without (female). This is much more significant than any quoted gene effect. But any suggested cause must be both sufficient and necessary. You can't demonstrate this in biology or in economics or sociology or any human activity. Spiritual development Although a fearless critic of outmoded biological theory, Dupré seems to have circumscribed his further development by declaring himself a Humanist. Currently, the various humanist groups seems similar to other rather old-fashioned religious societies, in that members claim a 'belief' in certain written statements. Dupré writes that humanists don't believe in God. I cannot imagine what this might mean to them. Certainly he seems to deny the possible existence of anything outside his understanding of Science. Others of his present colleagues [9] seem to have already moved beyond humanism, and his former collaborators at Stanford seem more tolerant towards new ideas [10]. In looking beyond the self-imposed limits of Humanism and other forms of Scientism, I would prefer to subscribe to Feyerabend [11] in his view that "anything goes"; that is, we should seriously keep in mind all new possibilities.

Note: Dupré uses the word myth to denote a story which is not testable in his version of Science, and therefore should be ignored. Others writers, including Mary Midgley [12], use myth to mean a story which we may choose to live by. I consider the whole of Science to be such a myth, though not a very attractive one. A personal view Over this discussion loom the pre-judgements implied in any use of language. For example Health: good, and Illness: bad. Microbes are bad, some cleaning products aim to kill them all. Social judgements are already built into our language. And how do we know what any particular word means to someone else? But that is an altogether more serious journey. References 1. Dupré, John See http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/sociology/staff/Dupre/ 2. Cartwright, Nancy: How the laws of Physics lie Oxford (1983), still in print. Also see the result of a survey among physicists in 2011 at http://phys.org/news/2013-01-survey-physicists-fundamental-quantum-mechanics.html 3. Margulis, Lynn See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/364780/Lynn-Margulis 4. Lederberg, Joshua See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Lederberg 5. Wilson, E.O. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology:_The_New_Synthesis 6. Oyama, Susan See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_systems_theory 7. Epigenetics See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics 8. The research team from the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), both parts of NIH, extended their recent genome sequencing study of skin bacteria, using DNA sequencing techniques optimised for identifying fungi. See http://www.nih.gov/news/health/may2013/nhgri-22.htm 9. See the Exeter meeting on Posthumanism at http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/events/details/index.php?event=843 and the downloadable attachments of Andy Pickering and Michael Hauskeller on that page. 10. The original Stanford School of Philosophy included Nancy Cartwright, John Dupré, and Ian Hacking, joined in spirit more recently by Ian James Kidd at Durham. See his Receptivity to Mystery: Cultivation, Loss and Scientism at http://www.academia.edu/1831353/Receptivity_to_Mystery 11. Feyerabend, Paul See my review of his The Tyranny of Science in the Science and Medical Network Review, forthcoming. 12. Midgley, Mary Myths We Live By Routledge, 2003.