Abstract
“Gene” is a theoretical term. Like all theoretical terms, it applies to many different domains of research. Like all theoretical terms, its meaning has dramatically changed over and over in time, and it has been defined in so many different operational ways. The problem is that the descriptive content of the various definitions of the genes that exist do not coincide. This paper provides a general evaluation of this situation. Firstly it shows that the theoretical concepts of classical genetics cannot be correlated unambiguously with the theoretical concepts of molecular genetics. In fact, there is no agreement on such simple questions as: Where are the genes? When do they exist? What are they? How many? Secondly, it provides an interpretation of why biologists continue to use the word ‘gene’. Three complementary explanations are proposed: scientific communication, economical stakes, and struggle for scientific authority among biological disciplines
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Benzer S (1955) Fine structure of a genetical region in bacteriophage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 41:344–354.
Benzer S (1959) On the topology of the genetic fine structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 47:1607–1620.
Carlson EA (1991) Defining the gene: an evolving concept. Am J Hum Genet 49:475–487.
Crick F (1979) Split genes and RNA splicing. Science 204:264–270.
Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. The long reach of the gene. Freeman, San Francisco
Dietrich MR (2000) The problem of the gene. In: Gros F, Gayon J, Morange M, Veuille M (eds) Comtes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris, Sciences de la vie, Tome 323(12), Special issue 1900 Rediscovery of Mendel’s laws, pp 1139–1146.
Falk R (1984) The gene in search of an identity. Hum Gene 68:195–204.
Feyerabend PK (1962) Explanation, reduction, and empiricism. Minnesota Stud. Phil. Sc. 3:28–97.
Fodor JA (1975) The language of thought. Thomas Y. Cromwell Company, New York.
Gayon J (1999) La génétique mendélienne a-t-elle été réduite par la biologie moléculaire? Biofutur 189, Mai:12
Gayon J (2004) La génétique est-elle encore une discipline? Médecine/Sciences 2 (Février):248–252.
Green MM, Green KC (1949) Crossing over between alleles of the lozenge locus in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 35:586–591.
Gros F (1986) Les Secrets du géne. Odile Jacob, Paris.
Hull D (1972) Reduction in genetics – biology or philosophy? Philos Sci 39:491–499.
Hull D (1974) Philosophy of biological science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Jacob F, Monod J (1959). Génes de structure et genes de regulation dans la synthése des proteins. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 249:1282–1284.
Jacob F, Perrin D, Sanchez C, Monod J (1960) L’opéron: groupe de gènes à expression coordonnée par un opérateur. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des. Sciences 250:1727–1729.
Jacob F, Monod J (1961) Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of protein. J Mol biol 3:318–356.
Jacob F, Ullman A, Monod J (1964) Le promoteur, élément génétique nécessaire à l’expression d’un opéron. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’A1cadémie des. Sciences 258:3125–3128.
Kemeny JG, Oppenheim P (1956) On reduction. Philos Stud 7:6–17.
Kimbrough SO (1979) On the reduction of genetics to molecular biology. Philos Sci 46:389–406.
Kitcher P (1984) (1953) And all that. A tale of two sciences. Philos Rev 93:335–373
Kuhn T (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Leder P (1982) The genetics of antibody diversity. Sc. Amer. 246 (May):72–83.
Müller Hill B (1996) The Lac operon. A Short History of a Genetic Paradigm. Berlin & New York, Walter de Gruyter.
Nagel E (1961) The structure of science. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.
Pontecorvo G (1952) The genetic formulation of gene structure and action. Advances in Enzymology 13:121–149.
Portin P (1993) The concept of the gene: short history and present stats. The Q Rev Biol 68:173–223.
Sakano H, Maki R, Kurosawa Y, Roeder W, Tonegawa S (1980) Two types of somatic recombination are necessary for the generation of complete immunoglobulin heavy-chain genes. Nature 286 (14 August):676–683.
Sarkar S (1998) Genetics and reductionism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Singer M, Berg P (1969) Genes and genomes: a hanging perspective. University Science, Mill Valley.
Schaffner KF (1969) The Watson-Crick model and reductionism. Br J Philos Sci 20:325–348.
Sterelny K, Griffiths PE (1999) Sex and death: an introduction to the philosophy of biology. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Stotz K, Griffiths PE, Knight R (2004) How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biomedical Sciences 35:647–673.
Tonegawa S (1983) Somatic generation of antibody diversity. Nature 302 (14 April):575–581.
Woodger JH (1952) tBiology and language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gayon, J. (2007). The Concept of the Gene in Contemporary Biology: Continuity or Dissolution?. In: Fagot-Largeault, A., Rahman, S., Torres, J.M. (eds) The Influence of Genetics on Contemporary Thinking. Logic, Epistemology, and The Unity of Science, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5664-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5664-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5663-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5664-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)