Re: [xmca] epigenesis

Mike

    Is this helpful:

http://teacher.shop.pbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=2916431

Ed

>I am trying to get ahold of a recording of the program WGBH has it, but how
>to purchase.All of this fits with what
>my cultural biological colleagues are saying these days at ucsd. I have not
>been able ot figure out how to purchase it
>and make it available. Can someone out there in xmca land solve that
>problem?
>mike
>
>
>wledge, still insufficient to answer your question. I think one of the
>> effective causes at the psychological level , might have to do with the
>> utopian futures genetics provides the "cult of eternal youth" , likewsie a
>> root metaphor of popular consumer culture. The promised developments of
>> genetic technologies certainly have that Utopian dimension, better futures
>> quality that makes of good ideology.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Of course this epigenetic perspective is
>> important, but it is far from new in
>> developmental biology. I recall reading about it
>> and citing it in my very first work on learning
>> back in the 70s. It was new then in biology as
>> well, articulated and developed especially by CH
>> Waddington and adopted and applied by a wide
>> variety of mavericks and more radical thinkers in
>> the inter-disciplinary series of workshops known
>> as the Serbelloni Symposia after the town in
>> Italy where they were held. Stuart Kauffman,
>> later well-known for his work on complex systems
>> theory and evolution presented some of his early
>> ideas about self-organization there and linked them to the epigenesis
>> model.
>>
>> I recall saying to people back then that the
>> implications bordered on neo-Larmarckian
>> inheritance of acquired characteristics, which
>> made a lot of people nervous, but few disagreed.
>>
>> So why is the model of gene-determinism so
>> appealing, almost a religion today, both among
>> molecular biologists and the lay public? Why has
>> it been so easy for the media to spread this gospel?
>>
>> Does it perhaps have something to do with our
>> cultural disinclination to accept responsibility
>> for inequity? "It's not my fault. It's all in the
>> genes. There's nothing I can (or need to) do about it." ??
>>
>> JAY.
>>
>> At 12:27 PM 10/25/2007, you wrote:
> > >I echo Martin's comments on the epigenetic
>> >system. It supports an assumption long shared by
>> >people on this network about the unification of biology and culture.
>> >
>> >Vera
>> >
>> >Martin Packer wrote:
>> >
> > >>Fascinating PBS documentary a few weeks ago on the 'epigenetic' system -
>> >>that environmental events during an individual's life, while they don't
>> >>change the structure of the genome, have a direct impact on the
>> expression
>> >>of genes, and that these changes are passed down (via their effect on
>> >>formation of eggs and sperm) to the next generation, and even to
>> >>grandchildren. If my grandfather lived in a time of famine, my
>> likelihood of
>> >>developing diabetes is much increased. As David says, something can be
>> >>heritable but not genetic (in origin). The inheritance of acquired
>> >>characteristics, no less.
>> >>Martin
>> >>
>> >>On 10/22/07 4:08 PM, "David Preiss" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Eirik,
>> >>>
>> >>>The Steve Connor comment you send us (second link below) tells
>> >>>exactly why JW was not doing science at all. Particularly, why you
>> >>>can't infer from an heritability ratio a conclusion about the
>> >>>intelligence of people that works with you (as Watson say). On the
>> >>>other hand, something can be statistically heritable and not genetic
>> >>>at all. A nice explanation is in the Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd
>> >>>paper I sent before.
>> >>>David
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>David
>> >>>
>> >>>On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:16 PM, E. Knutsson wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Amanda,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>JW's comment (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/
>> >>>> >>>article3075642.ece)
>> >>>>concludes with this request: "[W]e as scientists, wherever we wish
> > >>>>to place
>> >>>>ourselves in this great debate, should take care in claiming what are
>> >>>>unarguable truths without the support of evidence."
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Some of the other comments also seem to give a more balanced view:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3070538.ece
>> >>>>
>> >>>>http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3075640.ece
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Curtailing free debate is almost always a mistake. Allowing
>> >>>>scientists and
>> >>>>individuals to air their theories openly does not validate them. On
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>contrary it allows them to be refuted."
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Eirik
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>On 2007-10-21, at 01:26, Amanda Brovold wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Just for the record, it sounds to me as if Watson has suggested he
>> >>>>>may have
>> >>>>>been misquoted. In the article linked to 3 messages below he
>> >>>>>says: "I can
>> >>>>>understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was quoted as
>> >>>>>saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. To
>> >>>>>those who have
>> >>>>>drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is
>> >>>>>somehow
>> >>>>>genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. This is
>> >>>>>not what I
>> >>>>>meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no
>> >>>>>scientific basis
>> >>>>>for such a belief." I am not sure why the first two sentences of
>> >>>>>this quote
>> >>>>>are generally left off when it is repeated. Such common
>> >>>>>occurrences though
>> >>>>>(even on this very list) lead me to believe it is plausible that
>> >>>>>what Watson
>> >>>>>said my not have been as appalling as what has been passed around
>> >>>>>makes it
>> >>>>>seem. I agree that it seems certain he has a view I very much
>> >>>>>disagree with
>> >>>>>and seems to be contradicted by the preponderance of evidence.
>> >>>>>However, I
>> >>>>>find un-thoughtful knee-jerk responses to such views to be at
>> >>>>>least as
>> >>>>>dangerous as the views themselves. I have heard people stress
>> >>>>>that it is
>> >>>>>important for academics to respond appropriately to events such as
>> >>>>>these. I
>> >>>>>very much agree, it is important for experts in the relevant
>> >>>>>fields to
>> >>>>>correct any misunderstandings that stories like this are likely to
>> >>>>>perpetuate. It is also extremely important though for the academy to
>> >>>>>remember that academic freedom is absolutely vital. As appalling
> > >>>>>as views
>> >>>>>expressed by one academic may be, the expression of controversial
>> >>>>>view
>> >>>>>points simply cannot be allowed to threaten the protections
>> >>>>>necessary for
>> >>>>>inquiry to be carried out.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Something else to consider, phrased a different way, I feel
>> >>>>>confident that
>> >>>>>many people outraged by Watson's remarks would agree that in fact
>> >>>>>there are
>> >>>>>differences in the intelligences of different people, often
>> >>>>>correlated with
>> >>>>>differences in culture. These are not differences in terms of one
>> >>>>>being
>> >>>>>overall superior to another, but I do not think that reading is
>> >>>>>forced by
>> >>>>>the words that have been quoted without context, even if they are
>> >>>>>accurate.
>> >>>>>It is at least possible that Watson, as he now seems to claim,
>> >>>>>really meant
>> >>>>>to refer to differences without evaluating them. And isn't the
>> >>>>>recognition
>> >>>>>of the complexity of intelligence one of the things that makes
>> >>>>>many of the
>> >>>>>outraged so upset about IQ testing?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>-Amanda
>> >>>>
>> >>>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>>xmca mailing list
>> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >>>
>> >>>David Preiss, Ph.D.
>> >>>Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones
>> >>>Escuela de Psicología
>> >>>Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
>> >>>Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
>> >>>Macul, Santiago
>> >>>Chile
>> >>>
>> >>>Fono: 3544605
>> >>>Fax: 3544844
>> >>>e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
>> >>>web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
>> >>>web institucional: http://www.epuc.cl/profesores/dpreiss
>> >>>
>> >>>
> > >>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>xmca mailing list
>> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>xmca mailing list
>> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>> >--
>> >---------------------------------
>> >Vera P. John-Steiner
>> >Department of Linguistics
>> >Humanities Bldg. 526
>> >University of New Mexico
>> >Albuquerque, NM 87131
>> >(505) 277-6353 or 277-4324
>> >Internet: vygotsky@unm.edu
>> >---------------------------------
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >xmca mailing list
>> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>>
>>
>> Jay Lemke
>> Professor
>> University of Michigan
>> School of Education
>> 610 East University
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>
>> Tel. 734-763-9276
>> Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>> Website. www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Oct 25 21:39 PDT 2007