Biological Theory

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 170–179 | Cite as

Cell Types as Natural Kinds

Thematic Issue Article: Natural Kinds: New Dawn?

Abstract

Talk of different types of cells is commonplace in the biological sciences. We know a great deal, for example, about human muscle cells by studying the same type of cells in mice. Information about cell type is apparently largely projectible across species boundaries. But what defines cell type? Do cells come pre-packaged into different natural kinds? Philosophical attention to these questions has been extremely limited [see e.g., Wilson (Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, pp 187–207, 1999; Genes and the Agents of Life, 2005; Wilson et al. Philos Top 35(1/2):189–215, 2007)]. On the face of it, the problems we face in individuating cellular kinds resemble those biologists and philosophers of biology encountered in thinking about species: there are apparently many different (and interconnected) bases on which we might legitimately classify cells. We could, for example, focus on their developmental history (a sort of analogue to a species’ evolutionary history); or we might divide on the basis of certain structural features, functional role, location within larger systems, and so on. In this paper, I sketch an approach to cellular kinds inspired by Boyd’s Homeostatic Property Cluster Theory, applying some lessons from this application back to general questions about the nature of natural kinds.

Keywords

Cell types Homeostatic property cluster kinds Natural kinds Stable property cluster kinds 

References

  1. Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2008) Molecular biology of the cell, 5th edn. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt D (2008) The evolution of cell types in animals: emerging principles from molecular studies. Nat Rev Genet 9:868–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker MJ (2010) Specious intrinsicalism. Philos Sci 77:73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel W (2006) Discovering cell mechanisms: the creation of modern cell biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Boal D (2002) Mechanics of the cell. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonner JT (1988) The evolution of complexity by means of natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd R (1988) How to be a moral realist. In: Sayre-McCord G (ed) Essays on moral realism. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd R (1991) Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philos Stud 61:127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd R (1999) Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakravartty A (2007) A metaphysics for scientific realism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen S-Y, Wang Y, Telen MJ, Chi J-T (2008) The genomic analysis of erythrocyte microRNA expression in sickle cell diseases. PLoS ONE 3(6):e2360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craver CF (2009) Mechanisms and natural kinds. Philos Psychol 22:575–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devitt M (2008) Resurrecting biological essentialism. Philos Sci 75:344–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doolittle WF (1999) Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 248:2124–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis B (2001) Scientific essentialism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Ereshefsky M (2010) Species. In: Zalta EN (ed) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2010 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/species/
  17. Gall JA, Alcorn D, Butkus A, Coghlan JP, Ryan GB (1986) Distribution of glomerular peripolar cells in different mammalian species. Cell Tissue Res 244:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghiselin MT (1974) A radical solution to the species problem. Syst Zool 23:536–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert SF (2000) Developmental biology, 6th edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert SF, Epel D (2008) Ecological developmental biology: integrating epigenetics, medicine, and evolution. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths PE (1997) What emotions really are: the problem of psychological categories. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffiths PE (1999) Squaring the circle: natural kinds with historical essences. In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Hacking I (2007) Natural kinds: rosy dawn, scholastic twilight. In: O’Hear A (ed) Philosophy of science. Royal Institute of Philosopy Supplement: 61. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 203–239Google Scholar
  24. Häggqvist S (2005) Kinds, projectibility and explanation. Croatian J Philos 5:71–87Google Scholar
  25. Hull DL (1978) A matter of individuality. Philos Sci 45:335–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hull DL (1998) A clash of paradigms or the sound of one hand clapping. Biol Philos 13:587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knowles MA (2005) Oncogenes. In: Knowles MA, Selby PJ (eds) Introduction to the cellular and molecular biology of cancer. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Lange M (1995) Are there natural laws concerning particular biological species. J Philos 92:430–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lange M (2000) Natural laws in scientific practice. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Lange M (2009) Laws and lawmakers. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LaPorte J (2004) Natural kinds and conceptual change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Lipton P (1996) Review of H. Kornblith, Inductive Inference and its Natural Ground. Res 56:492–494Google Scholar
  33. Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacLean N, Hall BK (1987) Cell commitment and differentiation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Millikan RG (2000) On clear and confused ideas. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mumford S (2005) Kinds, essences, powers. Ratio 18:420–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Okasha S (2002) Darwinian metaphysics: species and the question of essentialism. Synthese 131:191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Malley MA, Martin W, Dupré J (2010) The tree of life: introduction to an evolutionary debate. Biol Philos 25:441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Putnam H (1975) Is semantics possible? In: Putnam H (ed) Mind, language and reality: philosophical papers, vol 2. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Ross MH, Pawlina W (2011) Histology: a text and atlas, 6th edn. Wolters Kluwer, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  41. Slater MH (2005) Monism on the one hand, pluralism on the other. Philos Sci 72:22–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slater MH (manuscript) Natural kindnessGoogle Scholar
  43. Tosh D, Horb ME (2009) How cells change their phenotype. In: Lanza R (ed) Essentials of stem cell biology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  44. Valentine JW (2003) Cell types, numbers, and body plan complexity. In: Hall BK, Olson WM (eds) Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Vickaryous MK, Hall BK (2006) Human cell type diversity, evolution, development, and classification with special reference to cells derived from the neural crest. Biol Rev 81(3):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilkerson TE (1995) Natural kinds. Ashgate, BrookfieldGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson RA (1999) Realism, essence, and kind: resuscitating species essentialism? In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 187–207Google Scholar
  48. Wilson RA (2005) Genes and the agents of life. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson RA, Barker MJ, Brigandt I (2007) When traditional essentialism fails: biological natural kinds. Philos Top 35(1/2):189–215Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations