Biological Theory

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 93–102 | Cite as

Validity and Utility in Biological Traits

Long Article
  • 210 Downloads

Abstract

“Trait” is a ubiquitous term in biology, but its precise meaning and theoretical foundations remain opaque. After distinguishing between “trait” and “character,” I argue for the value of adopting Theodosius Dobzhansky’s 1956 definition and framework for understanding “trait,” which holds that traits are just “semantic devices” that artificially impose order on continuous biological phenomena. I elaborate on this definition to distinguish between trait validity (compliance with Dobzhansky’s trait definition) and trait utility (usefulness of a trait). As a consequence of this elaboration of the meaning of “trait,” it becomes clear that considerations of adaptation, function, homogeneity and natural kinds have clouded discussions of the meaning of “trait” per se. Combining this account with work by David Hull and examples from contemporary biology, I demonstrate that even broad or heterogeneous traits (including multiple sub-traits) can qualify as valid and useful. As a test case for this understanding of trait, I show how it can help resolve critiques of schizophrenia’s status as a single trait, highlighting the recent advances made within schizophrenia research.

Keywords

Adaptation Character Natural kind Schizophrenia Trait 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Colin Allen, Lisa Lloyd, and Jim Smith for their comments on various stages of the paper.

References

  1. Adriaens PR (2007) Evolutionary psychiatry and the schizophrenia paradox: a critique. Biol Philos 22:513–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen C (2002) Real traits, real functions? In: Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) Functions: new essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 373–389Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th text rev. edn. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentall RP, Jackson HF, Pilgrim D (1988) Abandoning the concept of ‘schizophrenia’: some implications of validity. Br J Clin Psychol 27(4):303–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blom JD (2003) Deconstructing schizophrenia. Boom Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosy-Westphal A, Onur S, Geisler C, Wolf A, Korth O, Pfeuffer M, Schrezenmeir J, Krawczak M, Müller MJ (2006) Common familial influences on clustering of metabolic syndrome traits with central obesity and insulin resistance: the Kiel obesity prevention study. Int J Obes 31(5):784–790Google Scholar
  7. Boyd R (1991) Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philos Stud 61(1/2):127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang J-J, Chu C-M, Wang P-C, Lin Y-S, Pan K-L, Jang S-J, Chang S-T (2012) Differences in prevalence and severity of coronary artery disease by three metabolic syndrome definitions. Can J Cardiol 28(2):208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheniaux E, Landeira-Fernandez J, Versiani M (2009) The diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder and unipolar depression: interrater reliability and congruence between DSM-IV and ICD-10. Psychopathology 42(5):293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crespi B, Badcock C (2008) Psychosis and autism as diametrical disorders of the social brain. Behav Brain Sci 31(3):241–320Google Scholar
  11. Crespi B, Semeniuk C (2004) Parent–offspring conflict in the evolution of vertebrate reproductive mode. Am Nat 163(5):635–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crespi B, Stead P, Elliot M (2010) Comparative genomics of autism and schizophrenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(Suppl 1):1736–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeLisi LE (2011) Moving on in schizophrenia research to the next decade. Schizophr Res 127(1–3):14–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeSalle R (2006) What’s in a character? J Biomed Inform 39:6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobzhansky T (1956) What is an adaptive trait? Am Nat 90:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elder SJ, Lichtenstein AH, Pittas AG, Roberts SB, Fuss PJ, Greenberg AS, McCrory MA, Bouchard TJ, Saltzman E, Neale MC (2009) Genetic and environmental influences on factors associated with cardiovascular disease and the metabolic syndrome. J Lipid Res 50:1917–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitch T, Huber L, Bugnyar T (2010) Social cognition and the evolution of language: constructing cognitive phylogenies. Neuron 65:795–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freudenstein JV (2005) Character, states, and homology. Syst Biol 54(6):965–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frisch A, Colombo R, Michaelovsky E, Karpati M, Goldman B, Peleg L (2004) Origin and spread of the 1278insTATC mutation causing Tay-Sachs disease in Ashkenazi Jews: genetic drift as a robust and parsimonious hypothesis. Hum Genet 114(4):366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fristrup K (1992) Character: current usages. In: Keller EF, Lloyd EA (eds) Keywords in evolutionary biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–51Google Scholar
  21. Gómez-Ambrosi J, Silva C, Catalán V, Rodríguez A, Galofré JC, Escalada J, Valentí V, Rotellar F, Romero S, Ramírez B (2012) Clinical usefulness of a new equation for estimating body fat. Diabetes Care 35(2):383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 205(1161):581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffiths PE (2006) Function, homology, and character individuation. Philos Sci 73:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hull DL (1965) The effect of essentialism on taxonomy—two thousand years of stasis (II). Br J Philos Sci 16:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huntington G (1872) On chorea. Med Surg Report 26:317–321Google Scholar
  26. International Schizophrenia Consortium (2009) Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature 460:748–752Google Scholar
  27. Jablensky A (2010) The diagnostic concept of schizophrenia: its history, evolution, and future prospects. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 12:271–287Google Scholar
  28. Keshavan MS, Nasrallah HA, Tandon R (2011) Schizophrenia, “just the facts” 6. Moving ahead with the schizophrenia concept: from the elephant to the mouse. Schizophr Res 127(1–3):3–13Google Scholar
  29. King RC, Stansfield WD, Mulligan PK (2006) A dictionary of genetics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewens T (2009) Seven types of adaptationism. Biol Philos 24:161–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis CE, McTigue KM, Burke LE, Poirier P, Eckel RH, Howard BV, Allison DB, Kumanyika S, Pi-Sunyer FX (2009) Mortality, health outcomes, and body mass index in the overweight range: a science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation 119:3263–3271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maccaferri M, Sanguineti MC, Corneti S, Ortega JLA, Salem MB, Bort J, DeAmbrogio E, del Moral LFG, Demontis A, El-Ahmed A, Maalouf F, Machlab H, Martos V, Moragues M, Motawaj J, Nachit M, Nserallah N, Ouabbou H, Royo C, Slama A, Tuberosa R (2008) Quantitative trait loci for grain yield and adaptation of Durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) across a wide range of water availability. Genetics 178(1):489–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manavalan LP, Guttikonda SK, Tran L-SP, Nguyen HT (2009) Physiological and molecular approaches to improve drought resistance in soybean. Plant Cell Physiol 50(7):1260–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mulle JG (2012) Schizophrenia genetics: progress, at last. Curr Opin Genet Dev 22(3):238–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Müller MJ, Bosy-Westphal A, Krawczak M (2010) Genetic studies of common types of obesity: a critique of the current use of phenotypes. Obes Rev 11:612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Noone PG, Knowles MR (2001) ‘CFTR-opathies’: disease phenotypes associated with cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator gene mutations. Respir Res 2:328–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sereno PC (2007) Logical basis for morphological characters in phylogenetics. Cladistics 23:565–587Google Scholar
  38. Sterelny K (1988) Critical notice. Australas J Philos 66:538–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valles SA (2010) The mystery of the mystery of common genetic diseases. Biol Philos 25(2):183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Violle C, Navas M-L, Vile D, Kazakou E, Fortunel C, Hummel I, Garnier E (2007) Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116(5):882–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wagner GP (ed) (2001) The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner GP, Laubichler MD (2001) Character identification: the role of the organism. In: Wagner GP (ed) The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 141–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walker FO (2007) Huntington’s disease. Lancet 269(9557):218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Winther RG (2009) Character analysis in cladistics: abstraction, reification, and the search for objectivity. Acta Biotheor 57(1–2):129–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zachar P (2002) The practical kinds model as a pragmatist theory of classification. Philos Psychiatry Psychol 9(3):219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lyman Briggs College and Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations