Directions: Answer four of the five questions below. Each answer should be about 300-400 words. Answer all parts of each question. The questions are principally about the course readings, rather than lectures or discussions. So stick close to the readings.
Due Date: Saturday, Sept. 12 by 7 a.m. This is a hard deadline, i.e., work submitted after 7 a.m. will receive a grade of 0.
Where to submit: Turn in your Take-Home Final on this forum, just as you would a regular forum post. Please make sure to note the number of the question you are answering next to your actual answer.
Working in Groups: You can collaborate with others in groups of up to four members. You can even turn in identical answers. However, every group member must still turn in his or her own Take-home Final, and you must list who the members of your group were on your final.
1. Elliott Sober writes:
"Models of transmission systems [such as those of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman and of Boyd and Richerson] describe the quantitative consequences of systems of cultural influence. Social scientists inevitably make qualitative assumptions about the consequences of these systems. If it could be shown that these qualitative assumptions were wrong in important cases, and that these mistakes actually undermine the plausibility of various historical explanations, that would be a reason for social scientists to take a greater interest in these models of cultural evolution. But if the qualitative assumptions turn out to be correct, it is perhaps understandable that historians should not accord much importance to these investigations." (p. 33)
Explain this passage. What is an example of a qualitative assumption that a social scientist might make? Why does Sober think that finding out that such assumptions are wrong gives social scientists reason to adopt models of cultural evolution? What desirable feature do such models have that make them useful in such situations? Do you find Sober's view plausible? Why or why not?
2. James Griesemer writes:
"Acceptance of the causal structure of Wilson's diagram or its modern molecular counterpart has spread widely and influenced the thinking of most biologists. Because of its simplicity and portability, Wilson's diagram is likely to exert strong social influence through its representation of our deepest understanding of biological causation and the need to simplify when biologists interpret their work for the public. Weismannism is entrenched in our thought in part because its diagrammatic representation is clear, simple, easily expressed, and portable. But Weismann's original argument, using diagrams to illustrate ideas previously formulated has been inverted. Now we use language to formulate a theory on the basis of the abstraction previously expressed visually in Wilson's diagram. Because the diagram Wilson produced is wrong, its entrenchment in biological thinking has led to strange contortions as developmental biologists try to express what is wrong with Weismannism while relying on the very causal framework it expresses." (p. 80-81)
Explain what this passage means and the role it plays in Griesemer's overall argument. Then argue how we might understand the entrenchment of "clear, simple, easily expressed, and portable" representations -- in this case a style of causal diagram -- in terms of cultural replicators. Does this analysis support or undermine Tim Lewen's contention that "cultural units are not replicators"?
3. Elisabeth Lloyd is interested in how normality is defined through the establishment of "socially negotiated standards," observing that "[w]hat is abnormal under the biochemical model is not necessarily abnormal under a medical model" (p. 106, 109). She argues that there "is a tempting and widespread error in reasoning which is exacerbated by the slippage back and forth between distinct biological meanings of 'normal'" (p. 111).
Altruism -- self-sacrificial behavior -- has long presented a puzzle for "purely biological models" of evolution, according to Sober, but the "prospects for altruism to evolve are enhanced when culture is included in the model" (p. 30)
Using the ideas Lloyd develops to explain how health can't be defined purely objectively or scientifically, analyze the concept of altruism as it functions in models of genetic evolution and of cultural evolution. Explain how the term can have distinct meanings in the two different contexts. (Answering this question probably requires explaining some of the details of Lloyd's argument and explaining why altruism is so biologically mysterious.)
4. Roberta Millstein argues:
"There really is something biologically new about GMOs. [...] The techniques of genetic engineering are different from selection or hybridization. [...] The worry of using distantly related genes -- resulting in changes of a larger magnitude than would be likely to occur in nature or by most other methods -- is how they will behave in a very different genetic context given that genes can affect the expression of other genes in unpredictable ways."
In the CRISPR article:
"CRISPR's ability to precisely edit existing DNA sequences makes for more-accurate modifications [to crops -- and avoids the issue of mixing DNA from different species --] but it also makes it more difficult for regulators and farmers to identify a modified organism once it has been released. “With gene editing, there's no longer the ability to really track engineered products,” says Jennifer Kuzma [...]. “It will be hard to detect whether something has been mutated conventionally or genetically engineered.”
The definition of the cautionary principle:
"The principle that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted."
Is Millstein convincing or correct that GMOs are biologically new? Are genetic "changes of a larger magnitude than would be likely to occur in nature" enough to establish that GMOs are novel? Does the cautionary principle provide any guidance about how to choose between conventional GMOs and CRISPR-style GMOs given the "ultimate effects" hinted at in the passages above? Support your answer.
5. James Greisemer writes about the Human Genome Initiative:
"While genetic research advances by dividing the world into simple systems and complex environments, social problems are not solved merely by the control and manipulation of such isolated systems. One must take into account, explicitly or implicitly, both system and context; and molecular biologists have not the expertise, nor should they have the authority, to impose their beliefs and assumptions about context in a social evaluation of the HGI." (p. 85)
Explain how Griesemer arrives at this conclusion. Then apply these ideas to the issue of GMOs presented in the Millstein article, analyzing in particular the claims made by some scientists that opposing GMOs -- or even insisting that GMOs be clearly labelled as such -- is anti-science.