Works by Michael R. Dietrich
41 found
Order:
1 filter applied
DisambiguationsDisambiguations:
| Michael R. Dietrich [41] | Michael Robert Dietrich [1] |
- The origins of the neutral theory of molecular evolution.Michael R. Dietrich -1994 -Journal of the History of Biology 27 (1):21-59.
- How to choose your research organism.Michael R. Dietrich,Rachel A. Ankeny,Nathan Crowe,Sara Green &Sabina Leonelli -2020 -Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 80:101227.No categories
- (Mis)interpreting Mathematical Models: Drift as a Physical Process.Michael R. Dietrich,Robert A. Skipper Jr &Roberta L. Millstein -2009 -Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 1 (20130604):e002.Recently, a number of philosophers of biology have endorsed views about random drift that, we will argue, rest on an implicit assumption that the meaning of concepts such as drift can be understood through an examination of the mathematical models in which drift appears. They also seem to implicitly assume that ontological questions about the causality of terms appearing in the models can be gleaned from the models alone. We will question these general assumptions by showing how the same equation (...) — the simple 2 = p2 + 2pq + q2 — can be given radically different interpretations, one of which is a physical, causal process and one of which is not. This shows that mathematical models on their own yield neither interpretations nor ontological conclusions. Instead, we argue that these issues can only be resolved by considering the phenomena that the models were originally designed to represent and the phenomena to which the models are currently applied. When one does take those factors into account, starting with the motivation for Sewall Wright’s and R.A. Fisher’s early drift models and ending with contemporary applications, a very different picture of the concept of drift emerges. On this view, drift is a term for a set of physical processes, namely, indiscriminate sampling processes. (shrink)
- ‘Extreme’ organisms and the problem of generalization: interpreting the Krogh principle.Sara Green,Michael R. Dietrich,Sabina Leonelli &Rachel A. Ankeny -2018 -History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 40 (4):65.Many biologists appeal to the so-called Krogh principle when justifying their choice of experimental organisms. The principle states that “for a large number of problems there will be some animal of choice, or a few such animals, on which it can be most conveniently studied”. Despite its popularity, the principle is often critiqued for implying unwarranted generalizations from optimal models. We argue that the Krogh principle should be interpreted in relation to the historical and scientific contexts in which it has (...) been developed and used. We interpret the Krogh Principle as a heuristic, i.e., as a recommendation to approach biological problems through organisms where a specific trait or physiological mechanism is expected to be most distinctively displayed or most experimentally accessible. We designate these organisms “Krogh organisms.” We clarify the differences between uses of model organisms and non-standard Krogh organisms. Among these is the use of Krogh organisms as “negative models” in biomedical research, where organisms are chosen for their dissimilarity to human physiology. Importantly, the representational scope of Krogh organisms and the generalizability of their characteristics are not fixed or assumed but explored through experimental studies. Research on Krogh organisms is steeped in the comparative method characteristic of zoology and comparative physiology, in which studies of biological variation produce insights into general physiological constraints. Accordingly, we conclude that the Krogh principle exemplifies the advantages of studying biological variation as a strategy to produce generalizable insights. (shrink)No categories
- Manipulating underdetermination in scientific controversy: The case of the molecular clock.Michael R. Dietrich &Robert A. Skipper -2007 -Perspectives on Science 15 (3):295-326.: Where there are cases of underdetermination in scientific controversies, such as the case of the molecular clock, scientists may direct the course and terms of dispute by playing off the multidimensional framework of theory evaluation. This is because assessment strategies themselves are underdetermined. Within the framework of assessment, there are a variety of trade-offs between different strategies as well as shifting emphases as specific strategies are given more or less weight in assessment situations. When a strategy is underdetermined, scientists (...) can change the dynamics of a controversy by making assessments using different combinations of evaluation strategies and/or weighting whatever strategies are in play in different ways. Following an underdetermination strategy does not end or resolve a scientific dispute. Consequently, manipulating underdetermination is a feature of controversy dynamics and not controversy closure. (shrink)
- The role of causal processes in the neutral and nearly neutral theories.Michael R. Dietrich &Roberta L. Millstein -2008 -Philosophy of Science 75 (5):548-559.The neutral and nearly neutral theories of molecular evolution are sometimes characterized as theories about drift alone, where drift is described solely as an outcome, rather than a process. We argue, however, that both selection and drift, as causal processes, are integral parts of both theories. However, the nearly neutral theory explicitly recognizes alleles and/or molecular substitutions that, while engaging in weakly selected causal processes, exhibit outcomes thought to be characteristic of random drift. A narrow focus on outcomes obscures the (...) significant role of weakly selected causal processes in the nearly neutral theory. (shrink)
- Richard Goldschmidt's "Heresies" and the Evolutionary Synthesis.Michael R. Dietrich -1995 -Journal of the History of Biology 28 (3):431-461.
- Experimenting with sex: four approaches to the genetics of sex reversal before 1950.Michael R. Dietrich -2016 -History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 38 (1):23-41.In the early twentieth century, Tatsuo Aida in Japan, Øjvind Winge in Denmark, Richard Goldschmidt in Germany, and Calvin Bridges in the United States all developed different experimental systems to study the genetics of sex reversal. These locally specific experimental systems grounded these experimenters’ understanding of sex reversal as well as their interpretation of claims regarding experimental results and theories. The comparison of four researchers and their experimental systems reveals how those different systems mediated their understanding of genetic phenomena, and (...) influenced their interpretations of sex reversal. (shrink)
- The Educated Eye Visual Culture and Pedagogy in the Life Sciences.Nancy Anderson &Michael R. Dietrich (eds.) -2012 - Upne.A study of visual culture in the teaching of the life sciences.No categories
- Monte Carlo experiments and the defense of diffusion models in molecular population genetics.Michael R. Dietrich -1996 -Biology and Philosophy 11 (3):339-356.In the 1960s molecular population geneticists used Monte Carlo experiments to evaluate particular diffusion equation models. In this paper I examine the nature of this comparative evaluation and argue for three claims: first, Monte Carlo experiments are genuine experiments: second, Monte Carlo experiments can provide an important meansfor evaluating the adequacy of highly idealized theoretical models; and, third, the evaluation of the computational adequacy of a diffusion model with Monte Carlo experiments is significantlydifferent from the evaluation of the emperical adequacy (...) of the same diffusion model. (shrink)
- The diversification of developmental biology.Nathan Crowe,Michael R. Dietrich,Beverly S. Alomepe,Amelia F. Antrim,Bay Lauris ByrneSim &Yi He -2015 -Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 53:1-15.
- Beyond the Boss and the Boys: Women and the Division of Labor in Drosophila Genetics in the United States, 1934–1970.Michael R. Dietrich &Brandi H. Tambasco -2007 -Journal of the History of Biology 40 (3):509-528.The vast network of Drosophila geneticists spawned by Thomas Hunt Morgan's fly room in the early 20th century has justifiably received a significant amount of scholarly attention. However, most accounts of the history of Drosophila genetics focus heavily on the "boss and the boys," rather than the many other laboratory groups which also included large numbers of women. Using demographic information extracted from the Drosophila Information Service directories from 1934 to 1970, we offer a profile of the gendered division of (...) labor within Drosophila genetics in the United States during the middle decades of the 20th century. Our analysis of the gendered division of labor supports a reconsideration of laboratory practices as different forms of work. (shrink)
- Three perspectives on neutrality and drift in molecular evolution.Michael R. Dietrich -2006 -Philosophy of Science 73 (5):666-677.This article offers three contrasting cases of the use of neutrality and drift in molecular evolution. In the first, neutrality is assumed as a simplest case for modeling. In the second and third, concepts of drift and neutrality are developed within the context of population genetics testing and the development and application of the molecular clock.
- MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion.Kevin J. Peterson,Michael R. Dietrich &Mark A. McPeek -2009 -Bioessays 31 (7):736-747.One of the most interesting challenges facing paleobiologists is explaining the Cambrian explosion, the dramatic appearance of most metazoan animal phyla in the Early Cambrian, and the subsequent stability of these body plans over the ensuing 530 million years. We propose that because phenotypic variation decreases through geologic time, because microRNAs (miRNAs) increase genic precision, by turning an imprecise number of mRNA transcripts into a more precise number of protein molecules, and because miRNAs are continuously being added to metazoan genomes (...) through geologic time, miRNAs might be instrumental in the canalization of development. Further, miRNAs ultimately allow for natural selection to elaborate morphological complexity, because by reducing gene expression variability, miRNAs increase heritability, allowing selection to change characters more effectively. Hence, miRNAs might play an important role in shaping metazoan macroevolution, and might be part of the solution to the Cambrian conundrum. (shrink)
- Reinventing Richard Goldschmidt: Reputation, Memory, and Biography.Michael R. Dietrich -2011 -Journal of the History of Biology 44 (4):693 - 712.Richard Goldschmidt was one of the most controversial biologists of the mid-twentieth century. Rather than fade from view, Goldschmidt's work and reputation has persisted in the biological community long after he has. Goldschmidt's longevity is due in large part to how he was represented by Stephen J. Gould. When viewed from the perspective of the biographer, Gould's revival of Goldschmidt as an evolutionary heretic in the 1970s and 1980s represents a selective reinvention of Goldschmidt that provides a contrast to other (...) kinds of biographical commemorations by scientists. (shrink)
- Of Moths and Men: Theo Lang and the Persistence of Richard Goldschmidt's Theory of Homosexuality, 1916-1960.Michael R. Dietrich -2000 -History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 22 (2):219 - 247.Using an analogy between moths and men, in 1916, Richard Goldschmidt proposed that homosexuality was a case of genetic intersexuality. As he strove to create a unified theory of sex determination that would encompass animals ranging from moths to men, Goldschmidt's doubts grew concerning the association of homosexuality with intersexuality until, in 1931, he dropped homosexuality from his theory of intersexuality. Despite Goldschmidt's explicit rejection of his theory of homosexuality, Theo Lang, a researcher in the Genealogical-Demographic Department of the Institute (...) for Psychiatric Research in Munich, revived it, maintained Goldschmidt's association with it, and argued on its behalf in publications from 1936 to 1960. Lang's appropriation of Goldschmidt's theory did not depend on his resolution of the difficulties Goldschmidt had found with his own theory. Lang and Goldschmidt, I argue, had fundamentally different scientific and social commitments that allowed one to reject this theory of homosexuality and the other to accept it. (shrink)
- Inaugurating the Everett Mendelsohn Prize.Michael R. Dietrich -2016 -Journal of the History of Biology 49 (1):1-2.
- Richard Lewontin and the “complications of linkage”.Michael R. Dietrich,Oren Harman &Ehud Lamm -2021 -Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 88 (C):237-244.During the 1960s and 1970s population geneticists pushed beyond models of single genes to grapple with the effect on evolution of multiple genes associated by linkage. The resulting models of multiple interacting loci suggested that blocks of genes, maybe even entire chromosomes or the genome itself, should be treated as a unit. In this context, Richard Lewontin wrote his famous 1974 book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, which concludes with an argument for considering the entire genome as the unit (...) of selection as a result of linkage. Why did Lewontin and others devote so much intellectual energy to the “complications of linkage” in the 1960s and 1970s? We argue that this attention to linkage should be understood in the context of research on chromosomal inversions and co-adapted gene complexes that occupied mid-century evolutionary genetics. For Lewontin, the complications of linkage were an extension of this chromosomal focus expressed in the new language of models for linkage disequilibrium. (shrink)
- Molecular Evolution.Michael R. Dietrich -2008 - In Sahorta Sarkar & Anya Plutynski,Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Blackwell. pp. 157–168.This chapter contains section titled: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution The Molecular Clock The Neutral Null Model Controversy in Molecular Evolution Acknowledgment References Further Reading.No categories
- A shifting terrain: a brief history of the adaptive landscape.Michael R. Dietrich &Robert A. Skipper Jr -2012 - In Erik Svensson & Ryan Calsbeek,The Adaptive Landscape in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press.
- Microevolution and macroevolution are governed by the same processes.Michael R. Dietrich -2009 - In Francisco José Ayala & Robert Arp,Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 169–179.This chapter contains sections titled: The Bridgeless Gap? Species Selection The Macroevolution Dispute as a Biological Controversy Postscript: Counterpoint Acknowledgments References.
- On the mutability of genes and geneticists: The" Americanization" of Richard Goldschmidt and Victor Jollos.Michael R. Dietrich -1996 -Perspectives on Science 4 (3):321-345.Throughout the 1930s two of Germany’s most senior geneticists were caught up in controversy as they tried to enter the distinctly American culture of Drosophila genetics. When Richard Goldschmidt and Victor Jollos were forced by the Nazis to leave Germany in 1936 and 1933, respectively, this type of conflict intensified. The experiences of Goldschmidt and Jollos as émigré scientists are interpreted in terms of a conflict of scientific styles of thought. Their Americanization, I claim, involved the modification of their scientific (...) styles and consequently the ways in which they conceived of and presented their scientific work. (shrink)
- Underdetermination and the Limits of Interpretive Flexibility.Michael R. Dietrich -1993 -Perspectives on Science 1 (1):109-126.
- The Journal of the History of Biology at 50.Michael R. Dietrich -2017 -Journal of the History of Biology 50 (1):1-2.
- Paradox and Persuasion: Negotiating the Place of Molecular Evolution within Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW]Michael R. Dietrich -1998 -Journal of the History of Biology 31 (1):85 - 111.
- Introduction: Revisiting Garland Allen’s Views on the History of the Life Sciences in the Twentieth Century.Michael R. Dietrich -2016 -Journal of the History of Biology 49 (4):581-582.
- Book Forum.Michael R. Dietrich -2024 -Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 103 (C):176-177.
- Darwinian Evolution Across the Disciplines.Michael R. Dietrich,C. Robertson McClung &Mark A. McPeek -2001 -History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 23 (3/4):339 - 340.
- Editorial Introduction.Michael R. Dietrich -2012 -Journal of the History of Biology 45 (1):1-1.
- Looking Toward the Next Fifty Years at the Journal of the History of Biology.Michael R. Dietrich -2017 -Journal of the History of Biology 50 (4):689-690.
- Parsing postgenomics.Michael R. Dietrich -2016 -Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 59:158-160.No categories
- Representing the Object of Controversy: The Case of the Molecular Clock.Michael R. Dietrich -2007 -History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29 (2):161 - 176.Through a case study of the controversies surrounding the molecular clock, this paper examines the role of visual representation in the dynamics of scientific controversies. Representations of the molecular clock themselves became objects of controversy and so were not a means for closure. Instead visual representations of the molecular clock became tools for the further articulation of an ongoing controversy.
- The First Everett Mendelsohn Prize.Michael R. Dietrich -2017 -Journal of the History of Biology 50 (1):3-4.
- Two Men Who Invented Genetics.Michael R. Dietrich -2005 -Minerva 43 (4):429-433.
- Dreamers, Visionaries, and Revolutionaries in the Life Sciences.Oren Harman &Michael R. Dietrich (eds.) -2018 - University of Chicago Press.What are the conditions that foster true novelty and allow visionaries to set their eyes on unknown horizons? What have been the challenges that have spawned new innovations, and how have they shaped modern biology? In Dreamers, Visionaries, and Revolutionaries in the Life Sciences, editors Oren Harman and Michael R. Dietrich explore these questions through the lives of eighteen exemplary biologists who had grand and often radical ideas that went far beyond the run-of-the-mill science of their peers. From the Frenchman (...) Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who coined the word “biology” in the early nineteenth century, to the American James Lovelock, for whom the Earth is a living, breathing organism, these dreamers innovated in ways that forced their contemporaries to reexamine comfortable truths. With this collection readers will follow Jane Goodall into the hidden world of apes in African jungles and Francis Crick as he attacks the problem of consciousness. Join Mary Lasker on her campaign to conquer cancer and follow geneticist George Church as he dreams of bringing back woolly mammoths and Neanderthals. In these lives and the many others featured in these pages, we discover visions that were sometimes fantastical, quixotic, and even threatening and destabilizing, but always a challenge to the status quo. (shrink)No categories
- Rebels, Mavericks, and Heretics in Biology.Oren Harman &Michael R. Dietrich -2009 -Journal of the History of Biology 42 (1):192-194.Export citation
Bookmark - Book reviews-an american obsession: Science, medicine, and homosexuality in modern society.Jennifer Terry &Michael R. Dietrich -2000 -History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 22 (3):446-448.
- Review of Mutation, Randomness, and Evolution, by Arlin Stoltzfus. [REVIEW]Michael R. Dietrich -2024 -Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 16 (1).
- Jody Hey, Genes, Categories, and Species: The Evolutionary and Cognitive Causes of the Species Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press , xvii+217pp., $54.50. [REVIEW]Michael R. Dietrich -2004 -Philosophy of Science 71 (4):619-620.
- Book Review: Elof Axel Carlson, Mendel's Legacy: The Origin of Classical Genetics. [REVIEW]Michael R. Dietrich -2004 -Journal of the History of Biology 37 (3):590-591.
- Philosophy of Biology. [REVIEW]Michael R. Dietrich -1994 -Teaching Philosophy 17 (4):375-377.
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
 Email |  RSS feed |
Editorial team
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-54b44b69b7-nwt9g uwo