Table Of Content

Knowledge of Life Today Series Editor Bernard Reber Knowledge of Life Today Conversations on Biology: Jean Gayon Interviewed by Victor Petit Jean Gayon Victor Petit First published 2019 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address: ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030 UK USA www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com © ISTE Ltd 2019 The rights of Jean Gayon and Victor Petit to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Library of Congress Control Number: 2018966974 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78630-365-3 Contents Preface by Jean Gayon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Introduction by Victor Petit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter 1. Philosophy of Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. The philosophy of biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.1. Laws in physics and biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.2. Life and the living: le vivant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.1.3. Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1.1.4. Biology and mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 1.2. Philosophers and biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 1.2.1. Nietzsche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 1.2.2. Bergson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 1.2.3. Piaget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Chapter 2. Darwin and Darwinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2.1. Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2.1.1. The origins of natural selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2.1.2. Artificial selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 2.1.3. Sexual selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.2. Darwin and his times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2.2.1. From Newton to Darwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2.2 2. Malthus and Darwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.2.3. Smith, Darwin and the economists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 2.2.4. Lamarck and Darwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 2.2.5. Spencer and Darwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 2.2.6. Wallace and Darwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 2.3. After Darwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 vi Knowledge of Life Today 2.3.1. Toward the Modern Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 2.3.2. Variation, selection and adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 2.3.3. Natural selection today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 2.3.4. Circularity of fitness and the logical framework for natural selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Chapter 3. Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 3.1. History of genetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 3.1.1. The origins of the concept of heredity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 3.1.2. From Mendel to Mendelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 3.1.3. The birth of genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 3.1.4. History of genetics in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 3.2. Philosophy of genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 3.2.1. Determinisms and genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 3.2.2. Mendelian genes and molecular genes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 3.2.3. Genetic information and the “genetic program” . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 3.2.4. The many facets of the gene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Chapter 4. Biology and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 4.1. Science and politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 4.1.1. Scientific ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 4.1.2. Nature and nurture, inheritance and environment: the social stakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 4.1.3. The birth of eugenics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 4.1.4. A “new eugenics”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 4.2. The question of human evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 4.2.1. The debate over cultural evolution (Lewontin, Wilson, Dawkins) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 4.2.2. Evolution and religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 4.2.3. On race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 4.2.4. “Homo” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 4.3. Biotechnologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 4.3.1. Genetic engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 4.3.2. The future of medicine and human enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . 320 4.4. The end of a dialog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 Bibliography by Jean Gayon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Index of Notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 Preface by Jean Gayon The contents and structure of this work require some explanation. The original French title, La connaissance de la vie aujourd’hui, is intended to echo that of a collection of texts published by Georges Canguilhem in 1952, La connaissance de la vie1 (Knowledge of Life, 2008 [1965]). This modest book, which I consider to be the pinnacle of Canguilhem’s work, has been present at the back of my mind throughout my career, forming a silent but omnipresent framework for my whole way of thinking. My aim has been, more or less consciously, to imitate it. As with any imitation, my work deviates in certain respects from the paradigm in terms of topics, intellectual approach, and normative framework, but the method used is essentially the same, based on the conviction that temporal and intellectual depth are inextricably linked within the philosophy of science. I was fortunate enough to attend a class given by Georges Canguilhem at the very end of his career, but I was not one of his students in the classic sense of the term: Canguilhem was not my thesis advisor. He certainly facilitated my career, for which I am grateful; however, his primary role was as an intellectual model, an example hard-wired into my own mentality. In this sense, Georges Canguilhem truly was my “master”. Like Knowledge of Life, the present work is that of a philosopher, meditating on fascinating themes from the domains of biological and medical sciences. My work has developed within a type of triangle, with philosophy, science (notably biology) and the history of science at its points. I have been in constant contact with contemporary scientific advances, perhaps to a greater extent than my master; I have also been more deeply involved in the history of science from a “professional” perspective, delving into both written and oral archives. Furthermore, in my work I 1 CANGUILHEM G., La connaissance de la vie, Paris, Hachette, 1952. Second edition, Paris, Vrin, 1965. English translation, G. CANGUILHEM, Knowledge of Life, trans. by Stefanos Geroulanos and Daniela Ginsburg, Introduction by Paola Marrati and Todd Meyers, New York, Fordham University Press, 2008 [1965]. viii Knowledge of Life Today attended to the philosophy of science at the international level. I hope that my work was no less philosophical than his, but in this respect readers may form their own opinions. My approach to philosophy is more specific in the sense that it is rooted in a particular scientific context, and less in general philosophy and the history of philosophy than that of Canguilhem. Contemporary evolutionary biology, genetics, quantitative methods (notably probability and statistics) have all captured my attention, mostly from a theoretical point of view, but I have also made occasional forays into the practical sphere. Like Knowledge of Life, this book is kaleidoscopic. There is no single or dominant central theme. Instead, my work is organized around a method, applied to a certain number of questions relating to biology and its history. Few, if any, scientific domains have undergone such an incredible renewal over the last century. Unlike Canguilhem, I have refrained from assembling previously-published texts: the reflections in this book are the result of a series of interviews with a young philosopher. The history and format of this book go hand-in-hand. In 2010, Victor Petit, who had just completed his philosophy thesis on the history of the concept of milieu, approached me with the idea of producing a book of interviews. We did not know each other at the time. We began recording; weeks turned into months and months turned into years – three, in all, following a structure thought out by Victor. From the outset, I decided not to discuss the overall structure of the work or the questions being asked: this book is therefore as much a reflection of Victor Petit’s perception of my work than of my own perceptions. Victor was able to identify some fundamental questions present in my work, both those I tackled explicitly and those which had always remained implicit, without formulation or justification. For me, these interviews took the form of an in-depth, and sometimes painful, examination of conscience. Victor Petit also asked me a number of questions which are crucial to the philosophy of biology, but which did not relate directly to any given aspect of my existing work. Whilst these questions sometimes took me outside of my comfort zone, in terms of both skills and interests, I responded to them to the best of my ability. This is one of the reasons the book took so long to “mature”. Another, purely personal, factor also delayed the completion of this work, which is far larger than we initially anticipated. Victor carefully transcribed all of my oral responses; seeing the results, I was somewhat taken aback. Whilst he was content with my answers, pushing me to provide a more detailed, committed response to those questions which he considered to be most critical, I was horrified to see what I had said, and the way in which I had said it, in writing. This phenomenon appears to be a common feature of this type of editorial experience. I continued to prevaricate, never quite satisfied with the minor stylistic modifications which I had made here and there. Then, a few months before the book was due to be published, came the Preface by Jean Gayon ix crucial moment when I was able to pinpoint the reason for my inhibitions, delaying what should have been a gratifying experience. As I told Victor in late 2016, I was struck, at one point, by the impression that in spite of my deep introversion, I was not particularly interested in myself. This observation, doubtless somewhat exaggerated, may well have surfaced during a period of personal “reconfiguration” – the upheaval which came after I was diagnosed with a terminal illness. In any case, this revelation, in conjunction with my sentiment of culpability regarding the delay which I had imposed on my partner and, truth be told, the fact that the ultimate deadline was looming, gave me the impetus to bring the project to its conclusion. Victor and I established one simple rule: without tampering with the foundations of the book, I would revise and develop my answers at a rate and in a style of my choosing. I therefore edited all of my contributions, attempting to preserve the spontaneity of my responses whilst doing what I know best: explaining, justifying, and supporting my statements. I know that Victor was not convinced by this approach; he wished to retain many of the asides, the elements of uncertainty and the excesses present in our verbal exchanges. However, given that I am neither a political nor a cultural celebrity, I did not feel this to be appropriate. I am a professor, and I work with concepts; my feelings, excesses, and linguistic weaknesses are of no interest to anyone. For a man or woman of action – politician, artist, or other – the real-world conditions in which an act occurs are significant. Their immediate, on-the-spot reactions are revealing, and media interest in these reactions is both legitimate and understandable. In my case, however, the spontaneous aspect would have been of little interest. Victor Petit gleaned what he could – a considerable amount, in fact. At the end of the day, though, I preferred to take a step back. I have attempted to separate the ideas from the author, as far as is reasonable in the context of a series of interviews. I learned a lot through working with Victor Petit. The process was a form of intellectual communion – amicable and courteous, but demanding at the same time, with regard to both Victor’s questions and my responses. This is the reason why our interview, originally destined for publication six or seven years ago shortly after the end of our discussions, evolved over time into a whole book. I have attempted to clarify my intellectual stances, to explain concepts – some rather difficult to grasp, either philosophically or scientifically – in as simple a way as possible, and to respond to new questions which emerged. This weighty volume of discussions might be considered as a foreword to the rest of my work, but I very much doubt that any publisher would accept a “foreword” of this type. In a way, it is both less than and more than a foreword: less, as it makes no pretensions to exhaustivity; more, as it often goes further than my previous writings, and because it is the result of a collaborative effort. Over the course of my career, I have written over 40 forewords – I even, at one point, considered writing a book on “the art of writing forewords”. Evidently, this book is not a foreword; instead, it is an after-word, the work of one looking back over his previous writings. x Knowledge of Life Today Each chapter in this book is designed to be read independently, and each covers one of the four main dimensions of my work. I am thankful to Victor for clearly identifying these dimensions. They do not cover all of my work, but all of the essential themes and guiding principles are present. Chapters 2 and 3 (“Darwin and Darwinism” and “Genetics”) relate to the domains on which most of my work has focused; these are the subjects with which I am most comfortable. The first chapter (“Philosophy of Biology”) concerns a discipline which I first encountered relatively late in my career, through increasingly frequent visits to North America. I was, I believe, the first to introduce this domain of philosophy in the French university system, in the late 1990s. I learned more about the subject as I taught it, and a body of work has slowly grown out of the domain. Nevertheless, the philosophy of biology was never my primary area of study, coming after classical philosophy, biology, and the philosophical history of science. The final chapter in this book relates to social questions raised by the life sciences at the time of writing (eugenics, race, human evolution, biotechnologies etc.). I have only begun to consider these issues relatively recently, and always in response to social demands; my intellectual inclination is to avoid “man”. I have no regrets in this respect; the questions tackled in this chapter are of primary social and cultural, as well as scientific, importance to the modern world. Thanks are due firstly to Elisabeth Valsecchi Gayon, who read and re-read the manuscript until it was actually readable. Françoise Parot read through all of the previous versions of the text, and insisted that I keep working on it until I was totally at ease with what had been said. Armand de Ricqlès, Mathilde Lequin, Frédéric Bouchard, Pierre-Henri Gouyon and Michel Fichant all made valuable suggestions concerning particular developments. There are many references to my own works in this book. For reasons of clarity, the following notation has been used: books are noted “JG”, followed by roman numerals (e.g. “JGXXIV”); articles and chapters in compilations are noted “JG” followed by Arabic numerals (e.g. “JG292”). Full details may be found in the References at the end of the book. However, this book is by no means intended as an inventory; instead, it should be seen as a form of meditation following the inventory. Jean GAYON February 28th, 2018 Introduction by Victor Petit It is a universal truth that the most talented individuals are also often the most modest. It is equally the case that the most modest individuals are rarely the best- known. Jean Gayon is a prime example of this; extremely modest, he has only truly achieved international recognition for his contributions within one particular academic field. Hopefully, this book will contribute to introducing his scholarship to a wider readership. Anyone who knew Jean Gayon will tell you that he was both a historian and a philosopher, of science in general and of biology in particular. The development of the philosophy of biology as a field in its own right, particularly in France but also elsewhere, and this is mainly the result of Jean’s efforts. Scholarly work is not only measured in terms of writings; a scholar’s influence as teacher, thesis advisor1, organizer, and academic and intellectual partner is also crucial. Having been present at a symposium held in honor of Jean Gayon very recently2, I am in no doubt as to the strength and effectiveness of his influence. “I believe that the best way to exemplify our modern understanding lies in an extensive analysis of Darwin’s basic logical commitments, the reasons for his choices, and the subsequent manner in which these aspects of ‘the structure of evolutionary theory’ have established and motivated all our major debates and substantial changes since Darwin’s original publication in 1859”3. These words are 1 Seven of Jean Gayon’s former doctoral students have received the prestigious Prix de la Chancellerie des universités de Paris. 2 “Philosophie, histoire, biologie. Journées scientifiques en l’honneur de Jean Gayon”, March 15–16, 2017, ENS-Paris. See Francesca Merlin, Philippe Huneman (eds), Philosophie, histoire, biologie. Mélanges offerts à Jean Gayon, Paris, Éd. Matériologiques, 2018. 3 GOULD S.J., The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Harvard University Press, Harvard, 2002.