Characterisation of the Context-Dependence of the Gene Concept in Research Articles Possible Consequences for Teaching Concepts with Multiple Meanings (original) (raw)
Related papers
Characterisation of the Context-Dependence of the Gene Concept in Research Articles
Science & Education, 2017
The purpose of this study is to interpret and qualitatively characterise the content in some research articles and evaluate cases of possible difference in meanings of the gene concept used. Using a reformulation of Hirst's criteria of forms of knowledge, articles from five different subdisciplines in biology (transmission genetic, molecular biology, genomics, developmental biology and population genetics) were characterised according to knowledge project, methods used and conceptual contexts. Depending on knowledge project, the gene may be used as a location of recombination, a target of regulatory proteins, a carrier of regulatory sequences, a cause in organ formation or a basis for a genetic map. Methods used range from catching wild birds and dissecting beetle larvae to growing yeast cells in 94 small wells as well as mapping of recombinants, doing statistical calculations, immunoblotting analysis of protein levels, analysis of gene expression with PCR, immunostaining of embryos and automated constructions of multi-locus linkage maps. The succeeding conceptual contexts focused around concepts as meiosis and chromosome, DNA and regulation, cell fitness and production, development and organ formation, conservation and evolution. These contextual differences lead to certain content leaps in relation to different conceptual schemes. The analysis of the various uses of the gene concept shows how differences in methodologies and questions entail a concept that escapes single definitions and Bdrift around^in meanings. These findings make it important to ask how science might use concepts as tools of specific inquiries and to discuss possible consequences for biology education.
Science & Education, 2009
The purpose of this study is to analyze variations in how the gene concept is used and conceived in different sub-disciplines in biology. An examination of the development of subject matter and the use of the gene concept in a common college biology textbook shows that the gene concept is far from presented in a consistent way. The study describes and categorizes five different gene concepts used in the textbook; the gene as a trait, an information-structure, an actor, a regulator and a marker. These conceptual differences are not dealt with in an explicit manner. This constitutes one of the sources for confusion when learning about genes and genetics.
How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2004
Philosophers and historians of biology have argued that genes are conceptualized differently in different fields of biology and that these differences influence both the conduct of research and the interpretation of research by audiences outside the field in which the research was conducted. In this paper we report the results of a questionnaire study of how genes are conceptualized by biological scientists at the University of Sydney, Australia. The results provide tentative support for some hypotheses about conceptual differences between different fields of biological research. #
University students’ conceptions about the concept of gene: Interest of historical approach
Abstract: Concepts of genetics are often difficult to teach, specifically the central concept of gene. Even the scientists disagree when defining this concept. This paper investigates university students’ understanding about the gene and its functions. The results show the dominance of two conceptions of the gene: the Neoclassical model and the Mendelian model. The existence of hybrid conceptions and the lack of the modern model show that students are unable to mobilize the knowledge taught in biology. These results suggest to improve the teaching methods of genetics, for instance, by developing activities that bring students face to face with their conceptions. Key words: gene concept; gene functions; genetic determinism; historical models; students’ conceptions
University students conceptions about the concept of gene
Concepts of genetics are often difficult to teach, specifically the central concept of gene. Even the scientists disagree when defining this concept. This paper investigates university students' understanding about the gene and its functions. The results show the dominance of two conceptions of the gene: the Neoclassical model and the Mendelian model. The existence of hybrid conceptions and the lack of the modern model show that students are unable to mobilize the knowledge taught in biology. These results suggest to improve the teaching methods of genetics, for instance, by developing activities that bring students face to face with their conceptions.
Science Student Teachers’ Ideas about the ‘Gene’ Concept
The purpose of this study is to investigate science student teachers’ ideas about the ‘gene’ concept. This study focuses on the following questions: What kind of descriptions do science student teachers ascribe to gene? What categories can be derived from these descriptions in terms of common features? A total of 140 participating students, who were studying to become primary science teachers at the Ahmet Kelesoglu Faculty of Education of Selcuk University in Turkey, participated in this study. To reveal participating students’ ideas about the ‘gene’ concept they were asked to respond two open questions: (1) What is a gene in your opinion? (2) The participating students were asked to complete a free word association test. In the test, the term ‘gene’ was presented as a stimulus word. Data obtained from the questions were analyzed and the frequencies of the responses were classified in different categories. The results are compared with related literature and recommendations are provided.
Between the cross and the sword: the crisis of the gene concept
Genetics and Molecular Biology, 2007
Challenges to the gene concept have shown the difficulty of preserving the classical molecular concept, according to which a gene is a stretch of DNA encoding a functional product (polypeptide or RNA). The main difficulties are related to the overlaying of the Mendelian idea of the gene as a ‘unit’: the interpretation of genes as structural and/or functional units in the genome is challenged by evidences showing the complexity and diversity of genomic organization. This paper discusses the difficulties faced by the classical molecular concept and addresses alternatives to it. Among the alternatives, it considers distinctions between different gene concepts, such as that between the ‘molecular’ and the ‘evolutionary’ gene, or between ‘gene-P’ (the gene as determinant of phenotypic differences) and ‘gene-D’ (the gene as developmental resource). It also addresses the process molecular gene concept, according to which genes are understood as the whole molecular process underlying the capacity to express a particular product, rather than as entities in ‘bare’ DNA; a treatment of genes as sets of domains (exons, introns, promoters, enhancers, etc.) in DNA; and a systemic understanding of genes as combinations of nucleic acid sequences corresponding to a product specified or demarcated by the cellular system. In all these cases, possible contributions to the advancement of our understanding of the architecture and dynamics of the genetic material are emphasized.
On conceptual change in biology: The case of the gene
Evolution at a crossroads: The new biology and the …, 1985
The current situation in philosophy of science generally, and in philosophy of biology in particular, is most unsatisfactory. There are at least three general problems that many philosophers thought themselves near to solving twenty years ago, only to find that the anticipated solutions have come unglued. These are (1) the problem of characterizing and understanding the dynamics of conceptual change in science; (2) he problem of understanding the interrelationships among theories including particularly the reduction of one theory to another); and (3) he problem of scientific realism (i.e., the problem of how seriously to take the claims of theoretical science or, at least, of some theoretical scientists, to be describing the world literally--in terms of such theoretical entities as genes and protons, DNA molecules, and quarks). This general situation has significant effects on the philosophical study of particular sciences. In philosophy of biology, for example, although one finds a large number of elegant studies of particular topics, the sad fact is that there is no generally satisfactory large-scale synthesis n sight. We have no agreed-on foundation, no generally acceptable starting point from which to delimit and resolve the full range of theoretical problems of interest to scientists and philosophers regarding biology.