Re: [xmca] epigenesis

The link for ordering the PBS/NOVA program is
http://shop.wgbh.org/product/show/29967

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Mike Cole wrote:

> 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
>

Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK DE 19716

twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________

"those who fail to reread
  are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                   -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sat Oct 27 15:47 PDT 2007