The Ashley Treatment: Improving Quality of Life or Infringing Dignity and Rights?

The ‘Ashley treatment’ (growth attenuation, removal of the womb and breasts buds of a severely disabled child) has raised much ethical controversy. This article starts from the observation that this debate suffers from a lack of careful philosophical analysis which is essential for an ethical assessment. I focus on two central arguments in the debate, namely an argument defending the treatment based on quality of life and an argument against the treatment based on dignity and rights. My analysis raises doubts as to whether these arguments, as they stand in the debate, are philosophically robust. I reconstruct what form good arguments for and against the treatment should take and which assumptions are needed to defend the according positions. Concerning quality of life (Section 2), I argue that to make a discussion about quality of life possible, it needs to be clear which particular conception of the good life is employed. This has not been sufficiently clear in the debate. I fill this lacuna. Regarding rights and dignity (section 3), I show that there is a remarkable absence of references to general philosophical theories of rights and dignity in the debate about the Ashley treatment. Consequently, this argument against the treatment is not sufficiently developed. I clarify how such an argument should proceed. Such a detailed analysis of arguments is necessary to clear up some confusions and ambiguities in the debate and to shed light on the dilemma that caretakers of severely disabled children face.     

Theoretical studies on animal orientation. I. Methodological appraisal of classifications

Research on animal orientation shows a persistent lack of integration. Theories entertained in different “schools” are couched in incommensurable terms. The underlying definitions mostly do not satisfy elementary canons of methodology, and this results in a confusion of empirical and conceptual problems. Application of basic methodology shows that current classifications of orientation patterns are logically incomplete.Moreover, allegedly distinct kinds of orientation wrongly show logical dependencies resulting from poor definitions. Reference to physiological mechanisms, beyond stimuli and responses, must be omitted from definitions for orientation patterns. Likewise, orientation must not be made functional (adaptive) by definition. Vagueness is to some extent unavoidable in general theories.     

The moral complexity of sperm donation

Sperm donation is a widely accepted and increasingly common practice. In the standard case, a sperm donor sells sperm to an agency, waives his parental rights, and is absolved of parental responsibility. We tend to assume that this involves no problematic abandonment of parental responsibility. If we regard the donor as having parental responsibilities at all, we may think that his parental responsibilities are transferred to the sperm recipients. But, if a man creates a child accidentally, via contraception failure, we tend to assume that the man does indeed have parental responsibilities. Assessing these contrasting conclusions requires a theory of parental responsibility. I analyse prevalent theories of what makes someone parentally responsible and show that none of these theories can withstand scrutiny. I propose a new theory of parental responsibility, which, I argue, is more plausible than the alternatives. My theory of parental responsibility is based on our ownership and control over hazardous materials, namely, our gametes. I show that neither my theory, nor the theories I reject, can support our contrasting intuitions. I conclude that sperm donors are fathers, with parental responsibility. I argue that the alternative conclusion, that neither sperm donors nor accidental fathers are parentally responsible for their resulting offspring, is less plausible. I then consider whether parental responsibility can be transferred and argue that it is far from clear that it can. Finally, I address objections and consider some practical implications of these views.     

Anthropological Knowledge and Native American Cultural Practice in the Liberal Polity

U.S. Indian policy is caught between two incommensurable theories or paradigms. First, liberal theory extended the worldviewof early physical science to understand human nature. Providing the conceptual foundation for liberal polities, it largely underwrote U.S. Indian policy into the mid-20th century. Liberal theory recently has been superceded, as theory , by anthropological culture theory, which better accounts for variations between peoples and the realities of human life. The advent of culture theory marks a major paradigm shift within science and public consciousness. Liberal theory, however, remains the foundation for the powerful ideology of liberalism and the institutional practices of Western capitalism and democracy. Thus arise uncomfortable disjunctions—first, between incommensurable theories that both remain vital forces in public life, and, secondarily, between knowledge and practice. This article explores these contending theoretical formations, disjunctions between them, and illustrates how these disjunctions translate into contemporary argument in U.S. Indian policy.     

The competition controversy in community ecology

There is a long history of controversy in ecology over the role of competition in determining patterns of distribution and abundance, and over the significance of the mathematical modeling of competitive interactions. This paper examines the controversy. Three kinds of considerations have been involved at one time or another during the history of this debate. There has been dispute about the kinds of regularities ecologists can expect to find, about the significance of evolutionary considerations for ecological inquiry, and about the empirical credentials of theoretical studies of competition. Each of these elements is examined with an eye toward gaining philosophical clarification of the issues involved. In the process, certain shortcomings of contemporary philosophical theories are revealed. In particular, I argue that plausibility arguments based on background considerations are an important part of the model building tradition, but that current accounts of the structure and evaluation of scientific theories do little to illuminate this side of theoretical ecology.     

Assessing the prospects for a return of organisms in evolutionary biology

An argument has been raised from various perspectives against the Modern Synthesis (MS) in the past two decades: it has forgotten organisms. Niche construction theorists (Odling-Smee et al. 2003), developmental biologists like West-Eberhard (2003) and Evo-Devo elaborated various views which concur on a rehabilitation of the explanatory role of organisms, formerly neglected by an evolutionary science mostly centered on genes. This paper aims at assessing such criticisms by unraveling the specific arguments they use and evaluating how empirical findings may support them. In the first section, I review the usual critiques about the way MS treats organisms and show that the organisms-concerned critique is multifaceted, and I use the controversy about units of selection in order to show that purely conceptual and empirical arguments have been mixed up when organisms were concerned. In the second section, I consider successively the challenges raised to evolutionary MS by structuralist biologists and then the developmentalist challenge mostly raised by Evo-Devo. I distinguish what is purely conceptual among those criticisms and what mostly relies on recent empirical findings about genome activation, inheritance, and epigenetics. The last section discusses another program in MS, namely "evolutionary transitions" research, as enquiry into the emergence of organisms.     

The crucial experiment of Wilhelm Johannsen

I call an experiment “crucial” when it makes possible a decisive choice between conflicting hypotheses. Joharmsen's selection for size and weight within pure lines of beans played a central role in the controversy over continuity or discontinuity in hereditary change, often known as the Biometrician-Mendelian controversy. The “crucial” effect of this experiment was not an instantaneous event, but an extended process of repeating similar experiments and discussing possible objections. It took years before Johannsen's claim about the genetic stability of pure lines was accepted as conclusively demonstrated by the community of geneticists. The paper also argues that crucial experiments thus interpreted contradict certain ideas about the underdetermination of theories by facts and the theory-ladenness of facts which have been influential in recent history and sociology of science. The acceptance of stability in the pure lines did not rest on prior preference for continuity or discontinuity. And this fact permitted a final choice between the two theories. When such choice is characterized as “decisive” or “final”, this is not meant in an absolute philosophical sense. What we achive in these cases is highly reliable empirical knowledge. The philosophical possibility of drawing (almost) any conclusion in doubt should be distinguished from reasonable doubt in empirical science.     

Rethinking the role of theory in exploratory experimentation

To explain their role in discovery and contrast them with theory-driven research, philosophers of science have characterized exploratory experiments in terms of what they lack: namely, that they lack direction from what have been called “local theories” of the target system or object under investigation. I argue that this is incorrect: it’s not whether or not there is direction from a local theory that matters, but instead how such a theory is used to direct an experiment that matters. Appealing to contemporary exploratory experiments that involve the use of experimental techniques—specifically, examples where scientists explore the interaction of neural activity and human behavior by magnetically stimulating brains—I argue that local theories of a target system can inform auxiliary hypotheses in exploratory experiments, which direct these experiments. These examples illustrate how local theories can direct the exploration of target systems where researchers do not aim to evaluate these theories.     

A critical review of the statisticalist debate

Over the past decade philosophers of biology have discussed whether evolutionary theory is a causal theory or a phenomenological study of evolution based solely on the statistical features of a population. This article reviews this controversy from three aspects, respectively concerning the assumptions, applications, and explanations of evolutionary theory, with a view to arriving at a definite conclusion in each contention. In so doing I also argue that an implicit methodological assumption shared by both sides of the debate, namely the overconfidence in conceptual analysis as a tool to understand the scientific theory, is the real culprit that has both generated the problem and precluded its solution for such a long time.     

The Study of Genic Variation by Electrophoretic and Heat Denaturation Techniques at the Octanol Dehydrogenase Locus in Members of the DROSOPHILA VIRILIS Group

Heat denaturation studies of three different electrophoretic allozymes of octanol dehydrogenase were performed from 10 species of the Drosophila virilis group. A total of 18 alleles were discovered, and in 3 species in which electrophoretic studies indicated that the locus was monomorphic, heat denaturation showed that the locus was polymorphic. We show that electrophoretic studies underestimate the number of alleles at this locus by a factor of 2.6 in these species. The results are discussed in the light of the continuing controversy over selection and neutral theories of genetic variation.     

On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary Explanations

A controversy arose concerning the adaptive significance ofclitoral orgasm, disputing whether the presence of the traitin females is explained by appeal to developmental processesor natural selection (Gould, 1987a, b; Alcock, 1987). In response,Sherman (1988) offered a pluralistic solution in terms of levelsof analysis in which Gould and Alcock's disagreement was construedas semantic and not substantial. I argue that Sherman's solutionis mistaken. I suggest that the nature of the Gould/Alcock disputeis better understood by considering the abstract structure ofscientific theories and their role in explanation. This accountleads to a representation of science as having a plurality oftheoretical models which are integrated piecemeal in the explanationof concrete phenomena.     

‘All daughters and sons of the Republic’? Producing difference in French education

Anthropological focus on public sphere debates can have the unintended consequence of reaffirming ideological oppositions (‘secularism versus Islam’) while ignoring other processes of difference production. In this article, I examine how French school employees build a logic of cultural otherness in an arena of uncertain social reproduction. Contrary to analyses of the French public sphere that emphasize the ideology of secular universalism, I argue that this dominant ideology has little purchase in the thick of social relations in a peripheral school. Faced with neoliberal transformations and diminishing resources, teachers draw instead on diverse discourses that have the effect of producing cultural difference. Through this process, immigrant‐origin students are presented as incommensurable with Frenchness, and Frenchness becomes rooted in family structure and territory. This case illustrates how state actors confront the contradictions that inhabit universal citizenship and reconfigure the project of Republican schooling.     

What is the status of metabolic theory one century after Pütter invented the von Bertalanffy growth curve?

Metabolic theory aims to tackle ecological and evolutionary problems by explicitly including physical principles of energy and mass exchange, thereby increasing generality and deductive power. Individual growth models (IGMs) are the fundamental basis of metabolic theory because they represent the organisational level at which energy and mass exchange processes are most tightly integrated and from which scaling patterns emerge. Unfortunately, IGMs remain a topic of great confusion and controversy about the origins of the ideas, their domain and breadth of application, their logical consistency and whether they can sufficiently capture reality. It is now 100 years since the first theoretical model of individual growth was put forward by Pütter. His insights were deep, but his model ended up being attributed to von Bertalanffy and his ideas largely forgotten. Here I review Pütter's ideas and trace their influence on existing theoretical models for growth and other aspects of metabolism, including those of von Bertalanffy, the Dynamic Energy Budget (DEB) theory, the Gill-Oxygen Limitation Theory (GOLT) and the Ontogenetic Growth Model (OGM). I show that the von Bertalanffy and GOLT models are minor modifications of Pütter's original model. I then synthesise, compare and critique the ideas of the two most-developed theories, DEB theory and the OGM, in relation to Pütter's original ideas. I formulate the Pütter, DEB and OGM models in the same structure and with the same notation to illustrate the major similarities and differences among them. I trace the confusion and controversy regarding these theories to the notions of anabolism, catabolism, assimilation and maintenance, the connections to respiration rate, and the number of parameters and state variables their models require. The OGM model has significant inconsistencies that stem from the interpretation of growth as the difference between anabolism and maintenance, and these issues seriously challenge its ability to incorporate development, reproduction and assimilation. The DEB theory is a direct extension of Pütter's ideas but with growth being the difference between assimilation and maintenance rather than anabolism and catabolism. The DEB theory makes the dynamics of Pütter's ‘nutritive material’ explicit as well as extending the scheme to include reproduction and development. I discuss how these three major theories for individual growth have been used to explain ‘macrometabolic’ patterns including the scaling of respiration, the temperature–size rule (first modelled by Pütter), and the connection to life history. Future research on the connections between theory and data in these macrometabolic topics have the greatest potential to advance the status of metabolic theory and its value for pure and applied problems in ecology and evolution.     

The quantitation of buffering action I. <Emphasis Type="Italic">A formal &; general approach</Emphasis>

Background  

Although "buffering" as a homeostatic mechanism is a universal phenomenon, the quantitation of buffering action remains controversial and problematic. Major shortcomings are: lack of a buffering strength unit for some buffering phenomena, multiple and mutually incommensurable units for others, and lack of a genuine ratio scale for buffering strength. Here, I present a concept of buffering that overcomes these shortcomings.     

Weismann Versus Morgan Revisited: Clashing Interpretations on Animal Regeneration

This paper has three principal aims: first, through a detailed analysis of the hypotheses and assumptions underlying Weismann’s and Morgan’s disagreement on the nature of animal regeneration, it seeks to readdress the imbalance in coverage of their discussion, providing, at the same time, a fascinating case-study for those interested in general issues related to controversies in science. Second, contrary to Morgan’s beliefs according to which Weismann employed a speculative and unempirical method of scientific investigation, the article shows that Weismann performed experiments, made observations and proposed ‘undogmatic’ theories open to refutation. Third, through the reconstruction of Weismann’s and Morgan’s disagreement, this study illustrates how biology, during the very late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was undergoing important changes. I argue that this controversy clearly and convincingly demonstrates how some important epistemic assumptions became increasingly problematic for some members of the younger generations of biologists. At the end of my discussion I will also argue that Weismann and Morgan both had strong well-grounded arguments supporting their conclusions; for this reason I suggest a few factors (“taken-for-granted” beliefs or assumptions) that could explain why their disagreement was doomed to remain unresolved. In particular, I will analyze their diverse explicative interests, their different theoretical concerns and their distinct use of the available evidence.     

Anthropological Knowledge and Scientific Fact

In 1967 Ward Goodenough described two performance-based measures that many of us use to judge the quality of anthropological knowledge. Do we understand events in another community as its members understand them? Can we act there in ways that people will accept as conforming to their expectations? Judged by these standards, the famous hoax that the physicist Alan Sokal published in 1996 in the non-refereed journal Social Text would pass as good anthropology (however shameless). I look at a different—yet similar—scientific controversy, one that began in 1998 at the editorial offices of the British science weekly Nature. This controversy, which I call "The Little Lizard Controversy," and in which I have played a role, may show us how scientists sometimes misunderstand one another and why anthropological knowledge about the practice of science may be crucial in nurturing interdisciplinary research "collaboratories" in the twenty-first century, [science, interdisciplinary, controversies, miscommunication, symbols]     

Randomised Placebo-controlled trials and HIV-infected Pregnant Women in Developing Countries. Ethical Imperialism or Unethical Exploitation

The maternal-fetal HIV transmission trials, conducted in developing countries in the 1990s, undoubtedly generated one of the most intense, high profile controversies in international research ethics. They sparked off a prolonged acrimonious and public debate and deeply divided the scientific community. They also provided an impetus for the revision of the Declaration of Helsinki – the most widely known guideline for international research. In this paper, I provide a brief summary of the context, outline the arguments for and against the controversial use of placebo controls, and focus on particular areas that I believe merit further discussion or clarification. On balance, I argue that the researchers failed in their duties to protect the best interests of their research subjects, and to promote distributive justice. I discuss the difficulties of obtaining valid consent in this research context, and argue that it is unethical to inform women of their HIV status without at least offering them prophylactic treatment for their unborn children. A global view of justice, which endorses international equity, cannot be squared with international research guidelines that allow 'local conditions' to define the scope of duty to the control group. Finally, I suggest that the heated debate reflects a tension, if not an outright war, between two conflicting meta-ethical systems, or incommensurable paradigms, that underpin scientific research involving human subjects.     

Strategies to improve the reliability of a theory: the experiment of bacterial invasion into cultured epithelial cells

An analysis is presented of published methods that have been used by experimenters to justify the reliability of the theory of invasion of microorganisms into cultured cells. The results show that, to demonstrate this invasion, many experimenters used two or more methods that were based on independent technical and theoretical principles, and by doing so improved the reliability of the theory. Subsequently I compare this strategy of ‘multiple derivability’ with other strategies, discussed in the literature in relation to the mesosome, a bacterial organelle that had been detected with the electron microsope, but which appeared later to be an artifact. I propose that different strategies have been applied in this problem, and multiple derivability may have been the decisive one. Finally I discuss the idea that multiple derivability may help to anchor theories in a larger network of theories.     

An argument for sparsity

I consider the influence of the language used in anthropological analysis (the metalanguage). If in principle there are at least as many anthropologies as there are languages, then we must allow the possibility of seven thousand or so more or less incommensurable anthropologies. However, incommensurability need not follow: not only can sparse theory aid comparison but it can also help establish partial (incomplete) commensurability. The parsimony of sparse theory allows for clarity even when dealing with vague ideas. If to achieve this some fashionable terms of analysis have to avoided, this is a price worth paying. In sum: we should all say less more clearly.     

Breaking the ties: epistemic significance, bacilli, and underdetermination

One premise of the underdetermination argument is that entailment of evidence is the only epistemic constraint on theory-choice. I argue that methodological rules can be epistemically significant, both with respect to observables and unobservables. Using an example from the history of medicine -- Koch's 1882 discovery of tuberculosis bacteria -- I argue that even anti-realists ought to accept that these rules can break the tie between theories that are allegedly underdetermined. I then distinguish two types of underdetermination and argue that anti-realists, in order to maintain the underdetermination argument, need to do more than show that theories are empirically equivalent: they need to show that a certain kind of underdetermination obtains.