Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 34:58 | Cite as

Commentary on ‘How causal are microbiomes?’

  • Melinda Bonnie FaganEmail author
Article
  • 44 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Target Article: How Causal are Microbiomes

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Lynch, Parke and O’Malley’s rich and interesting paper. In my view the paper accomplishes its main aim, showing that current experimental methods and evidence do not adequately support claims of ‘microbiome causality’ for human hosts. The authors make a convincing case for this conclusion by scrutinizing the experimental methods and key concepts of microbiome research, focusing on alleged links with obesity and mental health conditions. This careful study of scientific practice reveals important limitations of experimental studies of microbiomes, supporting the conclusion that many causal claims about these complex entities are at best premature.

Muddying the argumentative waters, however, is the authors’ endorsement of “interventionist dimensions”—specificity, stability and proportionality. These dimensions allegedly “match intuitive scientific ideas about ‘good’ or ‘strong’ scientific explanations” (MS7), which suggests they are universal...

Notes

References

  1. Fagan MB (2013) Philosophy of stem cell biology. Palgrave-Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fagan MB (2017) Stem cell lineages: between cell and organism. Philos Theory Biol 9. Special Issue: The Ontologies of Living Beings http://www.philosophyandtheoryinbiology.org/
  3. Fagan MB (2019) Stem cell lineages and classification. In: Bursten J (ed) Perspectives on classification in synthetic sciences: unnatural kinds. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Fortunel N et al (2003) Comment on ‘stemness’. Science 302:393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox C (2006) Cell of cells. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Lancaster M, Knoblich J (2014) Organogenesis in a dish: modeling development and disease using organoid technologies. Science.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Magnus T, Liu Y, Parker GC, Rao MS (2008) Stem cell myths. Philos Trans R Soc 363:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maienschein Jane (2003) Whose view of life? Embryos, cloning, and stem cells. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Ross LN (2018) Causal selection and the pathway concept. Philos Sci 85:551–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ross LN, Woodward J (2016) Koch’s postulates: an interventionist perspective. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 59:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schickore J, Arabatzis T (eds) (2012) Special issue of Perspectives on Science, vol. 20, no. 4, with papers arising from the &HPS3 conference held in Bloomington. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/perspectives_on_science/toc/posc.20.4.html
  12. Takahashi S, Yamanaka S (2006) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126:663–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thomson J, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro S, Waknitz M, Swiergel J, Marshall V, Jones J (1998) Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282:1145–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Warmflash A, Sorre B, Etoc F, Siggia ED, Brivanlou AH (2014) A method to recapitulate early embryonic spatial patterning in human embryonic stem cells. Nat Methods 11:847–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Woodward J (2003) Making things happen. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations