Against “Genes For”: Could an Inclusive Concept of Genetic Material Effectively Replace Gene Concepts?

  • Richard M. Burian
  • Kostas Kampourakis
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 1)


This chapter focuses on the interactions between developmental, evolutionary, and genetic considerations in thinking about the structure and content of the genetic material and how it is regulated, with additional attention to the role of genetics in biomedical research. We suggest an approach to teaching non-professionals about genetics by paying attention to these issues and how they have been transformed by molecular tools and doctrines. Our main aim is to debunk the intuitive and widespread notion of “genes for”. The perspective proposed in this chapter should help students engage with the issues raised by contemporary biomedicine and biotechnology. We suggest that in many contexts it is wise to replace the concept of the gene with the concept of the genetic material as a vehicle for integrating developmental, evolutionary, and genetic considerations and for understanding the importance of genetics in biomedicine and biotechnology. In doing so, questions about genes turn into questions about the genetic material, which then can become a tool for integrating knowledge of other biological sciences. This policy should enter into early teaching about genetics in high schools and colleges. In the process, one will be able to develop helpful arguments against overly-narrow versions of genetic determinism and for the importance of a broad understanding of genes and inheritance.


Genetic Material Molecular Genetic Gene Concept Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Definite Description 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barnes, B., and J. Dupré. 2008. Genomes and what to make of them. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateson, P., and P. Gluckman. 2011. Plasticity, robustness, and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benzer, S. 1955. Fine structure of a genetic region in bacteriophage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 41: 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benzer, S. 1956. Genetic fine structure and its relation to the DNA molecule. Brookhaven Symposia in Biology 8: 3–16.Google Scholar
  5. Benzer, S. 1957. The elementary units of heredity. In A symposium on the chemical basis of heredity, ed. W.D. McElroy and B. Glass, 70–93. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beurton, P., R. Falk, and H.-J. Rheinberger (eds.). 2000. The concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burian, R.M. 1981–1982. Human sociobiology and genetic determinism. Philosophical Forum 13: 40–66.Google Scholar
  8. Burian, R.M. 2000. On the internal dynamics of Mendelian genetics. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris. Série III, Sciences de la Vie/Life Sciences 323(12): 1127–1137.Google Scholar
  9. Burian, R.M. 2005. The epistemology of development, evolution, and genetics. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burian, R. 2013. On gene concepts and teaching genetics – Episodes from classical genetics. Science & Education 22(2): 325–344.Google Scholar
  11. Burian, R.M., R.C. Richardson, and W.J. Van der Steen. 1996. Against generality: Meaning in genetics and philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 27: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlson, E.A. 1966. The gene: A critical history. Philadelphia/London: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  13. Castera, J., and P. Clement. 2012. Teachers’ conceptions about genetic determinism of human behaviour: A survey in 23 countries. Science & Education (online first article doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9494-0).
  14. Coelho, P.S.R., A.C. Bryan, A. Kumar, G.S. Shadel, and M. Snyder. 2002. A novel mitochondrial protein, Tar1p, is encoded on the antisense strand of the nuclear 25S rDNA. Genes & Development 16: 2755–2760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crick, F.H.C. 1958. On protein synthesis. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 12: The Biological Replication of Macromolecules: 138–163.Google Scholar
  16. Darden, L. 1991. Theory change in science: Strategies from mendelian genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Darwin, C.R. 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication, 2 vols. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  18. de Vries, H. 1910 [1889]. Intracellular pangenesis. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.
  19. Dietrich, M.R. 2000. The problem of the gene. Comptes rendus de l Académie des Sciences. Série III, Sciences de la Vie 323(12): 1139–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Djebali, S., et al. 2012. Evidence for transcript networks composed of chimeric RNAs in human cells. PLoS One 7(1): e28213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dougherty, M.J. 2009. Closing the gap: Inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. American Journal of Human Genetics 85(1): 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fogle, T. 2000. The dissolution of protein coding genes in molecular biology. In The concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives, ed. P. Beurton, R. Falk, and H.-J. Rheinberger, 3–25. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freifelder, D. 1987. Molecular biology. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar
  24. Gericke, N., M. Hagberg, V. Carvalho Santos, L.M. Joaquim, and C. El-Hani. 2012. Conceptual variation or incoherence? Textbook discourse on denes in six countries. Science & Education (online first article doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9499-8).
  25. Gilbert, S.F. 2000. Developmental biology. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert, S.F., and D. Epel. 2009. Ecological developmental biology: Integrating epigenetics, medicine, and evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Godfrey-Smith, P. 2009. Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Goh, K.I., M.E. Cusick, D. Valle, B. Childs, M. Vidal, and A.-L. Barabasi. 2007. The human disease network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104(21): 8685–8690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goodenough, U., and R.P. Levine. 1974. Genetics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  30. Griffiths, P.E., and E.M. Neumann-Held. 1999. The many faces of the gene. BioScience 49: 656–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffiths, P.E., and K.C. Stotz. 2006. Genes in the postgenomic era. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27: 499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jablonka, E., and M.J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jablonka, E., and G. Raz. 2009. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: Prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology 84(2): 131–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johannsen, W. 1909. Elemente der Exakten Erblichkeitslehre. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  35. Kampourakis, K. 2013. Mendel and the path to genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science & Education 22(2): 173–188.Google Scholar
  36. Kay, L.E. 2000. Who wrote the book of life: A history of the genetic code. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Keller, E.F. 2000. The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Keller, E.F. 2010. The mirage of a space between nature and nurture. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kitcher, P. 1978. Theories, theorists and theoretical change. Philosophical Review 87: 519–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kitcher, P. 1982. Genes. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33: 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mills Shaw, K.R., K. Van Horne, H. Zhang, and J. Boughman. 2008. Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics 178(3): 1157–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore, D.S. 2008. Espousing interactions and fielding reactions: Addressing laypeople’s beliefs about genetic determinism. Philosophical Psychology 21(3): 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morange, M. 1996. Construction of the developmental gene concept. The crucial years: 1960–1980. Biologisches Zentralblatt 115: 132–138.Google Scholar
  44. Morange, M. 2000. Gene function. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences. Série III, Sciences de la Vie 323(12): 1147–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morange, M. 2001. The misunderstood gene. Trans. M. Cobb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Morange, M. 2008. What history tells us XIII. Fifty years of the central dogma. Journal of Biosciences 33(2): 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morgan, T.H., and C.B. Bridges. 1913. Dilution effects and bicolorism in certain eye colors of Drosophila. The Journal of Experimental Zoology 15: 429–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morgan, T.H., A.H. Sturtevant, H.J. Muller, and C.B. Bridges. 1915. The mechanism of Mendelian heredity. New York: Henry Holt and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moss, L. 2001. Deconstructing the gene and reconstructing molecular developmental systems. In Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution, ed. S. Oyama, P.E. Griffith, and R.D. Gray, 85–97. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Moss, L. 2003. What genes can’t do. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  51. Neumann-Held, E.M. 1999. The gene is dead – Long live the gene! Conceptualizing genes the constructionist way. In Sociobiology and bioeconomics: The theory of evolution in biological and economic theory, ed. P. Kosowski, 105–137. Berlin/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Neumann-Held, E.M. 2001. Let’s talk about genes: The process molecular gene concept and its context. In Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution, ed. S. Oyama, P.E. Griffith, and R.D. Gray, 69–84. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Olby, R.C. 1972. Francis Crick, DNA, and the central dogma. In The twentieth-century sciences, ed. G. Holton, 227–280. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  54. Olby, R.C. 1975. The protein version of the central dogma. Genetics 79(Suppl): 3–14.Google Scholar
  55. Paul, D.B. 1995. Toward a realistic assessment of PKU screening. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, 1994, vol. 2, ed. A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels, 322–328. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  56. Portin, P. 2002. Historical development of the concept of the gene. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27: 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reydon, T.R., K. Kampourakis, and G.P. Patrinos. 2012. Genetics, genomics and society: The responsibilities of scientists for science communication and education. Personalized Medicine 9(6): 633–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rheinberger, H.-J. 2000. Gene concepts: Fragments from the perspective of molecular biology. In The concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives, ed. P. Beurton, R. Falk, and H.-J. Rheinberger, 219–239. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roberts, D.A. 2007. Scientific literacy/science literacy. In Handbook of research on science education, ed. S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman, 729–780. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Sadava, D., D.M. Hillis, H.C. Heller, and M. Berenbaum. 2011. Life: The science of biology. Gordonsville: WH Freeman Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Sarkar, S. 1998. Genetics and reductionism. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Singer, M., and P. Berg. 1991. Genes and genomes: A changing perspective. Mill Valley: University Science.Google Scholar
  63. Snyder, M., and M. Gerstein. 2003. Defining genes in the genomics era. Science 300: 258–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stadler, L.J. 1954. The gene. Science 120: 811–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stern, D.L. 2011. Evolution, development, and the predictable genome. Greenwood Village: Roberts & Company Publishers.Google Scholar
  66. Stotz, K.C., P.E. Griffiths, and R. Knight. 2004. How biologists conceptualize genes: An empirical study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35: 647–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strasser, B.J. 2006. A world in one dimension: Linus Pauling, Francis Crick and the central dogma of molecular biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 28: 491–512.Google Scholar
  68. Sturtevant, A.H. 1913a. A third group of linked genes in Drosophila ampelophila. Science 37: 990–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sturtevant, A.H. 1913b. The linear arrangement of six sex-linked factors in drosophila, as shown by their mode of association. The Journal of Experimental Zoology 14: 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tycowski, K.T., S. Mei-Di, and J.A. Steltz. 1996. A mammalian gene with introns instead of exons generating stable RNA products. Nature 379: 464–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walpole, B., A. Merson-Davies, and L. Dann. 2011. Biology for the IB diploma coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Waters, C.K. 1990. Why the anti-reductionist consensus won’t survive: The case of classical Mendelian genetics. In PSA 1990, vol. 1, ed. A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels, 125–139. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  73. Waters, C.K. 1994. Genes made molecular. Philosophy of Science 61: 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Waters, C.K. 2000. Molecules made biological. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 54: 539–564.Google Scholar
  75. Watson, J.D. 1965. Molecular biology of the gene. New York: Benjamin.Google Scholar
  76. Watson, J.D., and F.H.C. Crick. 1953. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature 171: 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Secretariat of Educational Research and DevelopmentGeitonas SchoolVari AttikisGreece

Personalised recommendations