Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biological Indeterminacy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reductionist explanations in biology generally assume that biological mechanisms are highly deterministic and basically similar between individuals. A contrasting view has emerged recently that takes into account the degeneracy of biological processes—the ability to arrive at a given endpoint by a variety of available paths, even within the same individual. This perspective casts significant doubt on the prospects for the ability to predict behavior accurately based on brain imaging or genotyping, and on the ability of neuroscience to stipulate ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bell, W. J. (1990). Searching behavior. New York: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellone, E. (1980). A world on paper: Studies on the second scientific revolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, H. C. (1983). Random walks in biology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggman, K. L., Abarbanel, H. D., & Kristan, W. B. (2006). From crawling to cognition, analyzing the dynamical interactions among populations of neurons. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R., Cohen, L. G., & Hallett, M. (2002). Nervous system reorganization following injury. Neuroscience, 111, 761–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. S. (2011). Brain trust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). The influence of Darwin on philosophy. In J. Dewey (Ed.), The influence of Darwin on philosophy and other essays. New York: H. Holt & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierick, H. A., & Greenspan, R. J. (2006). Molecular analysis of flies selected for aggressive behavior. Nature Genetics, 38, 1023–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, G. M. (1987). Neural Darwinism. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, G. M., & Gally, J. (2001). Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 13763–13768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. D., & Raichle, M. E. (2007). Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 700–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgopoulos, A. P. (1994). Population activity in the control of movement. International Review of Neurobiology, 37, 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm, a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 205, 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, R. J. (2001a). The flexible genome. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2, 383–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, R. J. (2001b). History, biology and individuality. Nimrod, 45, 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, R. J. (2009). Selection, gene interaction, and flexible gene networks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology, 74, 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, J. L., IV, Garvik, B., & Hartwell, L. (2001). Principles for the buffering of genetic variation. Science, 291, 1001–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heisenberg, M. (1994). Voluntariness (Willkurfahigkeit) and the general organization of behavior. In R. J. Greenspan & C. P. Kyriacou (Eds.), Flexibility and constraint in behavioral systems (pp. 147–156). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. (1963). Behavior genetics and individuality understood. Science, 142, 1436–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., Boerlijst, M. C., Cooke, J., & Smith, J. M. (1997). Evolution of genetic redundancy. Nature, 388, 167–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, R., Russell, D. P., Edelman, G. M., & Tononi, G. (1999). Increased synchronization of neuromagnetic responses during conscious perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 5435–5448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma, D. P., White, K. P., Hirsch, J., & Greenspan, R. J. (2002). Identification of genes involved in Drosophila melanogaster geotaxis, a complex behavioral trait. Nature Genetics, 31, 349–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tononi, G., Edelman, G. M., & Sporns, O. (1998). Complexity and coherency, integrating information in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 474–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J. Y., Tsau, Y., Hopp, H. P., Cohen, L. B., Tang, A. C., & Falk, C. X. (1994). Consistency in nervous systems, trial-to-trial and animal-to-animal variations in the responses to repeated applications of a sensory stimulus in Aplysia. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 1366–1384.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Ralph J. Greenspan

Authors
  1. Ralph J. Greenspan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph J. Greenspan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenspan, R.J. Biological Indeterminacy. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 447–452 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9379-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9379-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation