Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T00:06:25.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finding Normality in Abnormality: On the Ascription of Normal Functions to Cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2023

Seth Goldwasser Open the ORCID record for Seth Goldwasser [Opens in a new window]
Seth Goldwasser*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
*
Email: SEG111@pitt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cancer biologists ascribe normal functions to parts of cancer. Normal functions are activities that parts of systems are in some minimal sense supposed to perform. Cancer biologists’ finding normality within the abnormality of cancer poses difficulties for two main approaches to normal function. One approach claims that normal functions are activities for which parts are selected. However, some parts of cancers that have normal functions aren’t selected to perform them. The other approach claims that normal functions are part-activities that (typically) contribute to the survival or reproduction of the relevant system. However, cancers are too heterogeneous to establish what (typically) contributes to their progression across a type.

Type
Contributed Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 90 , Issue 5 , December 2023 , pp. 1214 - 1223
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amundson, Ron, and Lauder, George V.. 1994. “Function without Purpose.” Biology and Philosophy 9 (4):443–69.Google Scholar
Bigelow, John, and Pargetter, Robert 1987. “Functions.” Journal of Philosophy 84 (4):181–96.Google Scholar
Boorse, Christopher. 1977. “Health as a Theoretical Concept.” Philosophy of Science 44 (4):542–73.Google Scholar
Bozic, Ivana, and Wu, Catherine J.. 2020. “Delineating the Evolutionary Dynamics of Cancer From Theory to Reality.” Nature Cancer 1 (6):580–88.Google Scholar
Buller, David J. 1998. “Etiological Theories of Function: A Geographical Survey.” Biology and Philosophy 13 (4):505–27.10.1023/A:1006559512367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, Justin. 2016. A Critical Overview of Biological Functions. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Garson, Justin. 2017a. “Against Organizational Functions.” Philosophy of Science 84 (5):1093–1103.10.1086/694009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, Justin. 2017b. “A Generalized Selected Effects Theory of Function.” Philosophy of Science 84 (3):523–43.Google Scholar
Germain, Pierre-Luc. 2012. “Cancer Cells and Adaptive Explanations.” Biology and Philosophy 27 (6):785–810.Google Scholar
Germain, Pierre-Luc, and Laplane, Lucie 2017. “Metastasis as Supra-Cellular Selection? A Reply to Lean and Plutynski.” Biology and Philosophy 32 (2):281–87.10.1007/s10539-016-9555-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldwasser, Seth. 2023. “Standard Aberration: Cancer Biology and the Modeling Account of Normal Function.” Biology and Philosophy 38 (4):1–33.10.1007/s10539-023-09894-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, Laura L., Garrie, Karin, and Turner, Mark D.. 2020. “Role of S100 Proteins in Health and Disease.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA): Molecular Cell Research 1867 (6):118677.Google Scholar
Greaves, Mel, and Maley, Carlo C.. 2012. “Clonal Evolution in Cancer.” Nature 481 (7381):306–13.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. 1994. “Cladistic Classification and Functional Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 61 (2):206–27.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. 2006. “Function, Homology and Character Individuation.” Philosophy of Science 73 (1):1–25.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 2012. “Health, Naturalism, and Functional Efficiency.” Philosophy of Science 79 (4):519–41.Google Scholar
Hausser, Jean, and Alon, Uri. 2020. “Tumour Heterogeneity and the Evolutionary Trade-Offs of Cancer.” Nature Reviews Cancer 20 (4):247–57.10.1038/s41568-020-0241-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lean, Christopher, and Plutynski, Anya. 2016. “The Evolution of Failure: Explaining Cancer as an Evolutionary Process.” Biology and Philosophy 31 (1):39–57.Google Scholar
Mashouri, Ladan, Hassan Yousefi, Amir R. Aref, Ali M. Ahadi, Fatemah Molaei, and Alahari, Suresh K.. 2019. “Exosomes: Composition, Biogenesis, and Mechanisms in Cancer Metastasis and Drug Resistance.” Molecular Cancer 18(1):75.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Kunio, Masataka Umitsu, Dinuka M. De Silva, , Roy, Arpita, and Bottaro, Donald P.. 2017. “Hepatocyte Growth Factor/Met in Cancer Progression and Biomarker Discovery.” Cancer Science 108 (3):296–307.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. 1989. “In Defense of Proper Functions.” Philosophy of Science 56 (June): 288–302.10.1086/289488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, Karen. 1991. “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense.” Philosophy of Science 58 (2):168–84.Google Scholar
Neander, Karen. 2017. A Mark of the Mental: A Defence of Informational Teleosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Organ, Shawna L., and Tsao, Ming-Sound. 2011. “An Overview of the C-Met Signaling Pathway.” Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 3 (1):S7–S19.Google Scholar
Peinado, Héctor, Maša Alečković, Simon Lavotshkin, Irina Matei, Bruno Costa-Silva, Moreno-Bueno, Gema, Hergueta-Redondo, Marta et al. 2012. “Melanoma Exosomes Educate Bone Marrow Progenitor Cells toward a Pro-metastatic Phenotype Through Met.” Nat Med 18 (6):883–91.Google Scholar
Piccinini, Gualtiero and Garson, Justin. 2014. “Functions Must Be Performed at Appropriate Rates in Appropriate Situations.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (1):1–20.Google Scholar
Plutynski, Anya. 2017. “Evolutionary Perspectives on Molecular Medicine: Cancer From an Evolutionary Perspective.” In Philosophy of Molecular Medicine: Foundational Issues in Research and Practice, edited by Boniolo, G. and Nathan, M. J., 122–145. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plutynski, Anya. 2018. Explaining Cancer: Finding Order in Disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plutynski, Anya. 2019. “Cancer Modeling: The Advantages and Limitations of Multiple Perspectives.” In Understanding Perspectivism: Scientific Challenges and Methodological Prospects, edited by Massimi, M. and McCoy, C., 160–177. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781315145198-10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quail, Daniela F., and Joyce, Johanna A.. 2013. “Microenvironmental Regulation of Tumor Progression and Metastasis.” Nature Medicine 19 (11):1423–37.Google Scholar
Roux, Etienne. 2014. “The Concept of Function in Modern Physiology.” The Journal of Physiology 592 (11):2245–49.Google Scholar
Weber, Marcel. 2017. “How Objective Are Biological Functions?” Synthese 194 (12):4741–55.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry. 1973. “Functions.” Philosophical Review 82 (2):139–68.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, Aneta, Widlak, Piotr, Whiteside, Theresa, and Pietrowska, Monika. 2020. “Signaling of Tumor-Derived sEV Impacts Melanoma Progression.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21 (14):5066.Google Scholar
Zhang, Lin, and Yu, Dihua. 2019. “Exosomes in Cancer Development, Metastasis, and Immunity.” Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 1871 (2):455–68.Google Scholar