Thursday, September 23, 2004

James Griesemer (UC Davis) gave the keynote address on collaboration and multidisciplinary research, drawing on his own experience of participating in collaborative research projects on Grinnell's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, and genetic mapping in flies and humans.   From these cases, which integrated history, philosophy, and sociology to yield new perspectives on model-building and scientific objectivity, respectively, he drew several conclusions which became themes for the entire workshop: the importance of collaboration and cooperation across disciplinary lines, together with the need to 'market' oneself within extant disciplinary boundaries.   To epitomize: "research is research; marketing makes it philosophy" (or history, or sociology).  

Edna Suárez Díaz (UNAM) spoke on conducting interdisciplinary research, also drawing on her experiences across the disciplines of history, philosophy, and biology.   Her research on molecular biology as a confluence of different historical traditions (experimental, theoretical, and classificatory) provided a focused case study for a more general discussion of interdisciplinarity.   One important theme that emerged was the connection between interdisciplinarity and the disunity of science.   Within a pluralistic framework, Suárez argued, scientific disciplines can be seen as heterogeneous assemblages of techniques, phenomena, and concepts, held together in particular historical contexts.   Interdisciplinary research has its own role in the dynamics of inquiry: "like boundary objects, we must challenge disciplinary boundaries."

Jason Robert (ASU) spoke on stem cell research and chimeras, tracking this politically-charged topic across diverse disciplinary contexts: aesthetics, developmental biology of stem cells, pop culture, film criticism, and research bioethics. One theme that persisted across these disparate areas of contemporary thought was the need for a genuine and inclusive dialogue about the methods, concerns, and consequences of stem cell research.   Another evident theme was interdisciplinarity, summed up in Robert's observation: "Conducting interdisciplinary research is like chimaerizing ourselves."

Rob Skipper (U of Cinncinnati), with panel members Steve Downes (U of Utah), Kelly Smith (Clemson), and Anya Plutynski (U of Utah), led an innovative practical roundtable on "How to market oneself as a philosopher."   The entire panel shared their experiences in navigating the job market, and gave practical advice on every stage of the job-seeking process, from writing CVs and cover letters, to assembling a teaching portfolio and surviving the on-campus interview.   The focus of the roundtable was, explicitly, on getting a job in a philosophy department, but the general format could be applied to other areas, and hopefully will be in future workshops.  

Next, Bill Bechtel (UCSD) and Lindley Darden (UMD) led a discussion of the mechanistic account of explanation, according to which an explanation of a phenomenon is a description of the mechanism, the organized working entities and activities, that produced that phenomenon.   Foci of discussion included strategies for investigating mechanisms in biology, the relation of mechanistic explanation to reduction and levels of organization, and visual representation of mechanisms.   Also, since the paradigm cases of mechanistic explanation are from molecular, cellular, and neurobiology, the question arose: into what fields of study, and to what levels of analysis, can the mechanistic account be extended?  

Friday, September 24, 2004

Jay Odenbaugh (Lewis and Clark) spoke on method in philosophy of biology, arguing against 'hyperspecialization' and urging that attention be paid to philosophical debates in other special sciences, such as mathematics and physics.   Reason being: structural similarities between areas of biology and other special sciences, as well as similar debates, open the way to a comparative approach which can be used to illuminate ongoing debates in philosophy of biology.   He illustrated this comparative method by noting parallels and dissimilarities between recent debates on the levels of selection in evolution and earlier debates in philosophy of physics and mathematics, arguing that pluralism regarding levels of selection is importantly disanalogous to conventionalism in the latter.  

Edna Suárez Díaz (UNAM) spoke on experimental techniques in molecular evolution, comparing the uses and functions of experimental techniques for detecting natural variation across three approaches in the history of molecular evolutionary biology.   She argued that while these uses and functions differed between experimental, theoretical, and classificatory/descriptive approaches to molecular evolution, the experimental techniques used influenced the historical development of all three.   Another aspect of the history added to the complexity of the case: the rhetorical privileging of molecular over organismal data and methods.  

Elihu Gerson (Tremont Research Institute) led a roundtable on interdisciplinary discussions, focusing on the tension between progressive and innovative interdisciplinary work and the conservative institutional organization of most universities.   Panel members James Griesemer (UC Davis), Michael Ghiselin (CA Academy of Sciences), Edna Suárez Díaz (UNAM), and Richard Creath (ASU) drew on their own various interdisciplinary experiences to give advice on how to manage the tensions and challenges of pursuing interdisciplinary work.   Two memorable points that emerged in discussion: the importance of positive personal relationships for genuine collaboration, and the need to believe in and be fascinated by one's work, irrespective of how it maps onto traditional disciplines (as Creath put it, more pithily: "Boredom is death!")

Jay Odenbaugh (Lewis and Clark) led the roundtable on models in biology, with panel members Lindley Darden (UMD), Rob Skipper (UCinncinnati), Roberta Millstein (CalState Hayward), and Steve Downes (U of Utah).   Discussion was organized around target questions: What are models in biology?   What are the prospects for a unified account of biological models?   How can models be tested?   Can models be true or false - can realism be a goal of modeling?   What strategies of modeling are used in biology, and by what standards should they be evaluated?   The diversity of models in biology, and in their methods of evaluation and test, emerged during general discussion, which touched on the semantic view and its variations, model organisms, and the relation between models and mechanisms.  

Jason Robert (ASU) spoke on developmental evolutionary psychobiology, taking the core ideas of evolutionary developmental biology as a starting point.   After surveying its basic assumptions, he assessed the progress of this field on its core project: the bringing to bear of evolution on development, and vice versa.   Summing up the current state of the synthesis of development and evolution, Robert found it to be partial at best, and offered suggestions as to how it might be extended.   In particular, he recommended that a genuinely ("seriously") developmental evolutionary approach be applied to the evolution of behavior, as an alternative to evolutionary psychology.  

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Kim Sterelny (ASU, VUW) spoke on human cognitive evolution, taking the stance that decisions involving high information load and low margin for error are widespread, ancient human features. This set the stage for an adaptive account of human cognition which integrates biological and cultural evolution, and connects evolutionary response (innate, social, or individual learning) with stability of relevant environmental factors.   Sterelny emphasized 'mixed' social and individual learning, environmentally scaffolded rather than structured by innate modules, and distinguished by complex epistemic technology, as a distinctive feature of human cognition, in contrast to other recent accounts in evolutionary psychology, cultural evolution, and cognitive science.  

Jane Maienschein (ASU), with Kim Sterelny (ANU/VUW), led a roundtable on publishing aimed at graduate students preparing to publish articles in history and philosophy of biology.   As editors of The Journal of the History of Biology and Biology and Philosophy , respectively, Maienschein and Sterelny offered practical and authoritative guidelines for article-writing.   They also described the logistics and timing of submission, review, and revision, with much input from other faculty.   One piece of advice came up repeatedly: "Follow instructions!" - submissions which do so being rare and delightful for editors and reviewers.  

Jay Odenbaugh (Lewis and Clark) spoke on mathematical models in ecology, examining their nature and criteria for success.   Using examples from the ecological literature, he characterized mathematical ecological models as idealized mathematical structures containing one or more useful, but false, assumptions.   He then distinguished between ecological models and theories, and responded to critiques that ecological models are unrealistic and non-predictive by (1) refining the notion of predictive accuracy and (2) expanding the roles of such models to include other functions than predictive accuracy.   Other questions explored in discussion concerned explanation via such models, families of models and intertheoretic relations, and robustness.  

David Magnus (Stanford) led the roundtable on future directions in bioethics, with panel members Kelly Smith (Clemson), Jason Robert (ASU), and Jane Maienschein (ASU); Tom Cavanaugh (USF) introduced the panel and participated in general discussion.   Topics included different ways of   becoming involved with the rapidly-expanding field of bioethics, strategies for balancing academic work in bioethics with other research interests, and concerns about the wider historical and political context of recent bioethics research.   The lively discussion ranged from practical employment and training considerations, to concerns about scientific authority in bioethics, and connections between bioethics and politics.  

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Kim Sterelny (ASU/VUW) spoke on niche construction and its significance in evolution, responding to the recent claim by Odling-Smee, Laland, and Feldman that all organisms are niche-constructors.   Distinguishing between effects and control of the environment, Sterelny used a narrower conception of niche construction to contrast individual with collective niche construction, niche construction with Dawkins' extended phenotype (1982, 1994), and various forms of ecological inheritance.  

The FDISH organizing committee (Melinda Fagan, Patrick Forber, Matt Haber, Andrew Hamilton, Vivette García Deister, and Grant Yamashita) led the closing roundtable, assessing the content of the workshop in relation to its original aims: facilitating various collaborations, and highlighting emerging areas of interest, challenge, and opportunity in philosophy of biology.   The focus was again on the future: what lessons could be applied toward the planning and execution of other graduate training workshops?  

Informal discussions, spontaneously organized during FDISH:

EvoDevo (Roger Sansom)

Invasion Biology (Matt Haber)

Philosophy of Ecology (Jay Odenbaugh)