Search results

Maturana and Mpodozis (2000) developed a theory of evolution that is based on the concept of autopoiesis and differs paradigmatically from the conventional theory derived from Darwin (1859). The present study aims to show that the authors have not exhausted the explanatory potential that the concept of autopoiesis can offer for the theory of evolution. Based on the critique of Maturana and Mpodozis, a system theoretic-oriented concept for the origin of species will be developed.

To render the explanatory potential of the concept of autopoiesis more fruitful for the theory of evolution, the proposition is made that the application of this concept is not limited to the molecular, or organismal level, as propounded by Maturana and Mpodozis, but should be also related to populations and species. By exempting the design of Maturana and Mpodozis from the rudiments of methodological individualism, a new field of application for the concept of autopoiesis is explored.

The proposed system theoretic concept of evolution theory makes it possible to shed new, constructive light on fundamental problems in the conventional biology of evolution. For example, with regard to the significance of the emergence of sexuality, or how phases of accelerated change in the course of evolution (e.g. the Cambrian explosion) are possible, or regarding the problem of the units of selection.

Although there have been attempts in the social sciences to interpret populations as autopoietic systems (for example by Niklas Luhmann), the proposed approach to evolutionary biology is new. Also original is a system theoretic conception of the evolutionary theory, in a strict renunciation of methodological individualism. This renunciation permits systems theories of evolution in social science and biology to be compared across disciplines.

This article analyses in what way Swiss academic institutions have had a favourable or unfavourable influence on changing research practices by following developments in four scientific areas – Bose-Einstein Condensates, Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Large-Scale Assessments in education research and Computerised Corpus Linguistics. Based on empirical evidence, we argue that overall a number of institutional conditions have had a positive influence on the decisions of scientists to dare a switch to a new scientific field. One finds, however, also differences in the working of these institutional conditions leading to quicker or slower developments of the four selected scientific areas.

Our primary aim is to discuss the variability that exists in the operationalization of race/ethnicity in research on genetic and biological markers. We employ Stuart Hall’s “floating signifiers” of race approach to explain the ambiguous manner in which researchers discuss the links between race and genetics.

We examine articles that use race/ethnicity and genetic or biological markers between 2000 and 2013 within three prominent genetic journals. We focused on original, empirical articles only. We utilize various race/ethnic-related search terms to obtain our sample and to categorize how terms were used.

A total of 336 articles fit our search criteria. The number of articles mentioning race/ethnicity and genetic or biological information increased over the time. A significant percentage of publications base their research on whites only. When discussions of race are included in studies, scientists often use multiple categories of race/ethnicity without much explanation.

We omit non-research articles and commentary for each journal, which could contain important discussions regarding race and genetics. This work highlights how race/ethnicity can vary in application and interpretation.

Our discussion of race/ethnicity as “floating signifiers” adds a layer of complexity to the longstanding debate regarding the importance of race/ethnicity in genetic research. The “floating” nature of race/ethnicity underlines how subjective the characterizations of samples are and how possible interpretations of results for groups can impact health disparities research. Given the increased use of genetic data by social scientists, there is a need for more cross-disciplinary discussions on the race–gene relationship.

Genetics, a discipline of biology, is one of the most recent and rapidly advancing disciplines in science. This study aims to present a bibliometric analysis of the genetics research output of Iranian authors, map the intellectual structure of these studies and investigate the development path of this literature and the interrelationships among the main topics.

This study searched the Web of Science database for documentation of Iranian-published genetics research published up to 2020. Further, this study used HistCite software to profile and analyze the most cited articles and references and to draw their historiographies.

A database search revealed 21,329 documents that created the study population. The highest cited publications based on the Global Citation Score (GCS) and Local Citation Score (LCS) achieved scores of 602 and 47, respectively. The publication growth rate study demonstrated consistent expansion over time. The scientific maps based on LCS and GCS had five and four clusters, respectively. Furthermore, journal articles emerged as the predominant type of publication.

The significance of this study is in its contribution to understanding the genetics research position in Iran, informing policymakers and researchers, helping scientific collaboration and its impact on public attitudes and quality of life. The results of the present study, with benefits for various groups of communities, such as policymakers, academic groups and public society, can bridge the gap between theoretical research and practical implications.

The results of this study, by helping future advancement in health care, medical genetics and disease prevention, may have a direct and indirect positive influence on the quality of life. Furthermore, it may lead to more informed discussions on health care and biotechnology as well as influencing public attitudes and perceptions.

Ultimately, this study concludes that despite the proliferation of publications in terms of quantity and complexity, especially in areas such as disease diagnosis, prevention and treatment, there remains a need for more attention to other facets of genetics such as biology and biotechnology. Iranian publications are most related to population genetics, human genetics, molecular genetics, medical genetics, genomics, developmental genetics and evolutionary genetics out of 10 branches of genetics. This study reveals patterns in scientific outputs and authorship collaborations and plays an alternative and innovative role in revealing Iranian research trends in genetics.

This mixed-methods study reports on an outreach clinics program designed to deliver genetic services to medically underserved communities in Wisconsin.

We show the geographic distribution, funding patterns, and utilization trends for outreach clinics over a 20-year period. Interviews with program planners and outreach clinic staff show how external and internal constraints limited the program’s capacity. We compare clinic operations to the conceptual models guiding program design.

Our findings show that state health officials had to scale back financial support for outreach clinic activities while healthcare providers faced increasing pressure from administrators to reduce investments in charity care. These external and internal constraints led to a decline in the overall number of patients served. We also find that redistribution of clinics to the Milwaukee area increased utilization among Hispanics but not among African-Americans. Our interviews suggest that these patterns may be a function of shortcomings embedded in the planning models.

Planning models have three shortcomings. First, they do not identify the mitigation of health disparities as a specific goal. Second, they fail to acknowledge that partners face escalating profit-seeking mandates that may limit their capacity to provide charity services. Finally, they underemphasize the importance of seeking trusted partners, especially in working with communities that have been historically marginalized.

There has been little discussion about equitably leveraging genetic advances that improve healthcare quality and efficacy. The role of State Health Agencies in mitigating disparities in access to genetic services has been largely ignored in the sociological literature.

Heritability studies attempt to estimate the contribution of genes (vs. environments) to variation in phenotypes (or outcomes of interest) in a given population at a given time. This chapter scrutinizes heritability studies of adverse health phenotypes, emphasizing flaws that have become more glaring in light of recent advances in the life sciences and manifest most visibly in epigenetics.

Drawing on a diverse body of research and critical scholarship, this chapter examines the veracity of methodological and conceptual assumptions of heritability studies.

The chapter argues that heritability studies are futile for two reasons: (1) heritability studies suffer from serious methodological flaws with the overall effect of making estimates inaccurate and likely biased toward inflated heritability, and, more importantly (2) the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend – that of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance – is unsound. As discussed, contemporary bioscientific work indicates that genes and environments are enmeshed in a complex (bidirectional, interactional), dynamic relationship that defies any attempt to demarcate separate contributions to phenotype variance. Thus, heritability studies attempt the biologically impossible. The emerging research on the importance of microbiota is also discussed, including how the commensal relationship between microbial and human cells further stymies heritability studies.

Understandably, few sociologists have the time or interest to be informed about the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of heritability studies or to keep pace with the incredible advances in genetics and epigenetics over the last several years. The present chapter aims to provide interested scholars with information about heritability and heritability estimates of adverse health outcomes in light of recent advances in the biosciences.

Attempts to establish a biological basis for classifying human races into definable groups, arranged hierarchically from most advanced to least advanced, have a long and sordid history. From the days of the Spanish Inquisition, to the colonization of North and South America, the beginnings of the slave trade, to more recent claims about inborn racial differences in intelligence and personality, racists have tried to find biological differences that would separate the various races and provide a justification for social and economic exploitation. Biologically, races have been equated with subspecies as defined in the general biological literature. But the evidence from modern, molecular genetics, indicates that humans do not form the same kinds of distinguishable sub-groups common to other animal, especially mammalian, species. Biologically, human populations are 99% similar genetically, and the various visible characteristics that have traditionally been used to distinguish one “race” from another, do not correlate with any other characters of importance. Humans have evolved as a single lineage with many local populations that have always been in reproductive contact with each other. Thus, human sub-populations have not diverged to the extent that is found in other species, such as chimpanzees.

Regression analyses of compensatory educational programs have been criticized on the grounds that the pupils were not randomly selected. Specifically, it has been argued that a spurious deleterious effect of the treatment will be observed when the selection procedure systematically puts lower-ability students into the treatment group and higher-ability students into the control group.

We evaluate this argument via a simple test score model: pretest score and posttest score are fallible measures of underlying true ability and the true treatment effect is zero. Posttest is regressed on pretest and a treatment dummy. The spurious effect arises when selection of subjects for treatment is explicit on the basis of true ability, but not when it is explicit on the basis of pretest score.