The Chemical Characterization of the Gene: Vicissitudes of Evidential Assessment

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The chemical characterization of the substance responsible for the phenomenon of “transformation” of pneumococci was presented in the now famous 1944 paper by Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty. Reception of this work was mixed. Although interpreting their results as evidence that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the molecule responsible for genetic changes was, at the time, controversial, this paper has been retrospectively celebrated as providing such evidence. The mixed and changing assessment of the evidence presented in the paper was due to the work’s interpretive flexibility – the evidence was interpreted in various ways, and such interpretations were justified given the neophytic state of molecular biology and methodological limitations of Avery’s transformation studies. I argue that the changing context in which the evidence presented by Avery’s group was interpreted partly explains the vicissitudes of the assessments of the evidence. Two less compelling explanations of the reception are a myth-making account and an appeal to the wartime historical context of its publication.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
STETCC-3
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Robustness, Discordance, and Relevance.Jacob Stegenga - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (5):650-661.
A History of Molecular Biology.Morange, Michel & Cobb, Matthew

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Robustness and Independent Evidence.Stegenga, Jacob & Menon, Tarun

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2011-10-03

Total views
287 ( #11,703 of 42,425 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
37 ( #18,057 of 42,425 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.