Philosophy of Biology: About the Fossilization of Disciplines and Other Embryonic Thoughts

This paper focuses on a running dispute between Werner Callebaut's naturalistic view and Filip Kolen and Gertrudis Van de Vijver's transcendentalist view on the nature of philosophy of biology and the relation of this discipline to biological sciences. It is argued that, despite differences in opinion, both positions agree that philosophy of biology's ultimate goal is to 'move' biology or at least be 'meaningful' to it. In order to make this goal clear and effective, more is needed than a polarizing debate which hardly touches upon biology. Therefore, a redirection in discussion is suggested towards a reflection on the possibilities of incorporating philosophy in interdisciplinary research, and on finding concrete research questions which are of interest both to the philosopher and to the biologist.     

Again,What the Philosophy of Biology is not

There are many things that philosophy of biology might be. But, given the existence of a professional philosophy of biology that is arguably a progressive research program and, as such, unrivaled, it makes sense to define philosophy of biology more narrowly than the totality of intersecting concerns biologists and philosophers (let alone other scholars) might have. The reasons for the success of the “new” philosophy of biology remain poorly understood. I reflect on what Dutch and Flemish, and, more generally, European philosophers of biology could do to improve the situation of their discipline locally, regionally, and internationally, paying particular attention to the lessons to be learned from the “Science Wars.” This paper grew out of my contribution to the symposium Philosophy of Biology in the Netherlands and Flanders organized by Thomas Reydon and Sabina Leonelli in Amsterdam in February 2004. It is a rather personal reaction to many of the opinions voiced in the quite heated atmosphere of the Symposium. My main concern is to convey an idea of what, according to me, is required to turn “our” philosophy of biology into a more successful enterprise than it currently is. This is motivated by a disconcerting discovery I made at the Symposium: Contrary to my expectations, a sensitivity for the sorts of things that make possible philosophy of biology of the best kind available today seems to be largely lacking in our part of the world. I wish to stress from the outset that although I will be quite polemical at times, this is always intended in the spirit of constructive dialogue.     

A Synthetic Biology Project - Developing a single-molecule device for screening drug-target interactions

This review describes a European-funded project in the area of Synthetic Biology. The project seeks to demonstrate the application of engineering techniques and methodologies to the design and construction of a biosensor for detecting drug-target interactions at the single-molecule level. Production of the proteins required for the system followed the principle of previously described "bioparts" concepts (a system where a database of biological parts - promoters, genes, terminators, linking tags and cleavage sequences - is used to construct novel gene assemblies) and cassette-type assembly of gene expression systems (the concept of linking different "bioparts" to produce functional "cassettes"), but problems were quickly identified with these approaches. DNA substrates for the device were also constructed using a cassette-system. Finally, micro-engineering was used to build a magnetoresistive Magnetic Tweezer device for detection of single molecule DNA modifying enzymes (motors), while the possibility of constructing a Hall Effect version of this device was explored. The device is currently being used to study helicases from Plasmodium as potential targets for anti-malarial drugs, but we also suggest other potential uses for the device.