Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Averaged versus individualized: pragmatic N-of-1 design as a method to investigate individual treatment response.Davide Serpico & Mariusz Maziarz - 2023 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13 (4):1-28.
    Heterogeneous treatment effects represent a major issue for medicine as they undermine reliable inference and clinical decision-making. To overcome the issue, the current vision of precision and personalized medicine acknowledges the need to control individual variability in response to treatment. In this paper, we argue that gene-treatment-environment interactions (G × T × E) undermine inferences about individual treatment effects from the results of both genomics-based methodologies—such as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and genome-wide interaction studies (GWIS)—and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Then, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Idealisations and the aims of polygenic scores.Davide Serpico - 2023 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 102 (C):72-83.
    Research in pharmacogenomics and precision medicine has recently introduced the concept of Polygenic Scores (PGSs), namely, indexes that aggregate the effects that many genetic variants are predicted to have on individual disease risk. The popularity of PGSs is increasing rapidly, but surprisingly little attention has been paid to the idealisations they make about phenotypic development. Indeed, PGSs rely on quantitative genetics models and methods, which involve considerable theoretical assumptions that have been questioned on various grounds. This comes with epistemological and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Polygene Risk Scores.James Woodward & Kenneth Kendler - 2023 - Philosophy of Medicine 4 (1).
    This paper explores the interpretation and use of polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We argue that PRSs generally do not directly embody causal information. Nonetheless, they can assist us in tracking other causal relationships concerning genetic effects. Although their purely predictive/correlational use is important, it is this tracking feature that contributes to their potential usefulness in other applications, such as genetic dissection, and their use as controls, which allow us, indirectly, to "see" more clearly the role of environmental variables.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Genetically caused trait is an interactive kind.Riin Kõiv - 2023 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13 (3):1-25.
    In this paper I argue that the extent to which a human trait is genetically caused can causally depend upon whether the trait is categorized within human genetics as genetically caused. This makes the kind genetically caused trait an interactive kind. I demonstrate that this thesis is both conceptually coherent and empirically plausible. I outline the core rationale of this thesis and demonstrate its conceptual coherence by drawing upon Waters’ (2007) analysis of genetic causation. I add empirical plausibility to the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Drowning in shallow causality.Hao Shen & Marcus W. Feldman - 2023 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46:e199.
    It has been known for decades that inference concerning genetic causes of human behavioral phenotypes cannot be legitimately made from correlations among relatives. We claim that these inferential difficulties cannot be overcome by assigning different names to causes inferred from within-family and population-level genome-wide association studies (GWASs). For educational attainment, for example, unraveling gene–environment interactions requires more than new names for causes.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • All that glisters is not gold: Genetics and social science.Callie H. Burt - 2023 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46:e186.
    In their target article, Madole & Harden offer an account of “what it means for genes to be causes” of social outcomes to bolster their claim that genetics should be incorporated into social science with practical implications. Here I object to several key features of their arguments, their representation of the state of science, and claims about the utility of genetics for social science and society.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark