Why humans do not make good vampires. Testing the ability of humans to detect true blood.

BACKGROUND: Research indicating the effects of real blood or of its iconic representation on human behaviour has thus far concentrated on phobia and aggressiveness. Little is known about other responses or, more fundamentally, about the biological basis of all such responses. AIM: In this study it is examined whether or not humans are able to detect real blood. METHODS: Human subjects (n = 89) were asked to distinguish different kinds of blood from red control fluids under varying visual and choice conditions. Relevant differences between subjects were tested for through written questionnaires, including standardized scales for disgust sensitivity (DS-R) and blood phobia (MBPI) and performance on two clinical olfactory tests. RESULTS: Analysis of variance shows that humans are excellent detectors of animal blood (in casu pig blood), whereas the ability of detecting human blood is much less developed. Surprisingly, differences in olfactory capacities and personal experience with blood have no effect on blood detection, while blood fear lowers and disgust sensitivity ameliorates this performance. CONCLUSION: This study allows further mapping of the exact role of disgust sensitivity in human behaviour, as well as a deliberate choice of materials in blood-related experiments. It is imperative for further research on the behavioural and psychological impact 'blood' resorts on humans.

Normative ethics does not need a foundation: it needs more science.

The impact of science on ethics forms since long the subject of intense debate. Although there is a growing consensus that science can describe morality and explain its evolutionary origins, there is less consensus about the ability of science to provide input to the normative domain of ethics. Whereas defenders of a scientific normative ethics appeal to naturalism, its critics either see the naturalistic fallacy committed or argue that the relevance of science to normative ethics remains undemonstrated. In this paper, we argue that current scientific normative ethicists commit no fallacy, that criticisms of scientific ethics contradict each other, and that scientific insights are relevant to normative inquiries by informing ethics about the options open to the ethical debate. Moreover, when conceiving normative ethics as being a nonfoundational ethics, science can be used to evaluate every possible norm. This stands in contrast to foundational ethics in which some norms remain beyond scientific inquiry. Finally, we state that a difference in conception of normative ethics underlies the disagreement between proponents and opponents of a scientific ethics. Our argument is based on and preceded by a reconsideration of the notions naturalistic fallacy and foundational ethics. This argument differs from previous work in scientific ethics: whereas before the philosophical project of naturalizing the normative has been stressed, here we focus on concrete consequences of biological findings for normative decisions or on the day-to-day normative relevance of these scientific insights.

Ins and outs of systems biology vis-à-vis molecular biology: continuation or clear cut?

The comprehension of living organisms in all their complexity poses a major challenge to the biological sciences. Recently, systems biology has been proposed as a new candidate in the development of such a comprehension. The main objective of this paper is to address what systems biology is and how it is practised. To this end, the basic tools of a systems biological approach are explored and illustrated. In addition, it is questioned whether systems biology 'revolutionizes' molecular biology and 'transcends' its assumed reductionism. The strength of this claim appears to depend on how molecular and systems biology are characterised and on how reductionism is interpreted. Doing credit to molecular biology and to methodological reductionism, it is argued that the distinction between molecular and systems biology is gradual rather than sharp. As such, the classical challenge in biology to manage, interpret and integrate biological data into functional wholes is further intensified by systems biology's use of modelling and bioinformatics, and by its scale enlargement.

Philosophy of biology: about the fossilization of disciplines and other embryonic thoughts.

This paper focuses on a running dispute between Werner Callebaut's naturalistic view and Filip Kolen and Gertrudis Van de Vijver's transcendentalist view on the nature of philosophy of biology and the relation of this discipline to biological sciences. It is argued that, despite differences in opinion, both positions agree that philosophy of biology's ultimate goal is to 'move' biology or at least be 'meaningful' to it. In order to make this goal clear and effective, more is needed than a polarizing debate which hardly touches upon biology. Therefore, a redirection in discussion is suggested towards a reflection on the possibilities of incorporating philosophy in interdisciplinary research, and on finding concrete research questions which are of interest both to the philosopher and to the biologist.

The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union.

Recapitulating how genetic modification technology and its agro-food products aroused strong societal opposition in the European Union, this paper demonstrates how this opposition contributed to shape the European regulatory frame on GM crops. More specifically, it describes how this opposition contributed to a de facto moratorium on the commercialization of new GM crop events in the end of the nineties. From this period onwards, the regulatory frame has been continuously revised in order to slow down further erosion of public and market confidence. Various scientific and technical reforms were made to meet societal concerns relating to the safety of GM crops. In this context, the precautionary principle, environmental post-market monitoring and traceability were adopted as ways to cope with scientific uncertainties. Labeling, traceability, co-existence and public information were installed in an attempt to meet the general public request for more information about GM agro-food products, and the specific demand to respect the consumers' and farmers' freedom of choice. Despite these efforts, today, the explicit role of public participation and/or ethical consultation during authorization procedures is at best minimal. Moreover, no legal room was created to progress to an integral sustainability evaluation during market procedures. It remains to be seen whether the recent policy shift towards greater transparency about value judgments, plural viewpoints and scientific uncertainties will be one step forward in integrating ethical concerns more explicitly in risk analysis. As such, the regulatory frame stands open for further interpretation, reflecting in various degrees a continued interplay with societal concerns relating to GM agro-food products. In this regard, both societal concerns and diversely interpreted regulatory criteria can be inferred as signaling a request - and even a quest - to render more explicit the broader-than-scientific dimension of the actual risk analysis.

Philosophy of biology: outline of a transcendental project.

This paper analyses the actual meaning of a transcendental philosophy of biology, and does so by exploring and actualising the epistemological and metaphysical value of Kant's viewpoint on living systems. It finds inspiration in the Kantian idea of living systems intrinsically resisting objectification, but critically departs from Kant's philosophical solution in as far as it is based in a subjectivist dogmatism. It attempts to overcome this dogmatism, on the one hand by explicitly taking into account the conditions of possibility at the side of the subject, and on the other hand by embedding both the living and the knowing system into an ontology of complexly organized dynamical systems. This paper fits into the transcendental perspective in acknowledging the need to analyse the conditions of knowability, prior to the contents of what is known. But it also contributes to an expansion and an actualisation of the issue of transcendentality itself by considering the conditions of possibility at the side of the object as intrinsically linked to the conditions of possibility at the side of the subject.

Reflecting on complexity of biological systems: Kant and beyond?

Living organisms are currently most often seen as complex dynamical systems that develop and evolve in relation to complex environments. Reflections on the meaning of the complex dynamical nature of living systems show an overwhelming multiplicity in approaches, descriptions, definitions and methodologies. Instead of sustaining an epistemic pluralism, which often functions as a philosophical armistice in which tolerance and so-called neutrality discharge proponents of the burden to clarify the sources and conditions of agreement and disagreement, this paper aims at analysing: (i) what has been Kant's original conceptualisation of living organisms as natural purposes; (ii) how the current perspectives are to be related to Kant's viewpoint; (iii) what are the main trends in current complexity thinking. One of the basic ideas is that the attention for structure and its epistemological consequences witness to a great extent of Kant's viewpoint, and that the idea of organisational stratification today constitutes a different breeding ground within which complexity issues are raised. The various approaches of complexity in biological systems are captured in terms of two different styles, universalism and (weak and strong) constructivism, between which hybrid forms exist.

Epigenetics: a challenge for genetics, evolution, and development?

In this paper, it is argued that differences in how one relates the genome to its surrounding contexts leads to diverse interpretations of the term epigenetics. Three different approaches are considered, ranging from gene-centrism, over gene-regulation, to dynamic systems approaches. Although epigenetics receives its widest interpretation in a systems approach, a paradigmatic shift has taken place in biology from the abandonment of a gene-centric position on to the present. The epistemological and ontological consequences of this shift are made explicit.

Theories in early embryology: close connections between epigenesis, preformationism, and self-organization.

In current biological and philosophical literature, the use of the terms epigenesis and epigenetics has increased tremendously. As these terms are often confused, this paper aims at clarifying the distinction between them by drawing their conceptual and historical evolutions. The evolution of the term epigenesis is situated in the context of early embryological studies. Departing from Aristotle's natural philosophy, it is shown that epigenesis gained alternating attention from the 17th century onwards, as it was introduced into neo-classical embryology and considered to be the opposite of the preformationist tradition. Where preformation stated that the germ cells of each organism contain preformed miniature adults that unfold during development, epigenesis held that the embryo forms by successive gradual exchanges in an amorphous zygote. Although both traditions tried to explain developmental organization, religious and metaphysical arguments on the conception of embryonic matter as either active or passive determined the scope of their respective explanations. It is shown that these very arguments still underlie the use of gene-centric metaphors in the molecular revolution of the 20th century.

From epigenesis to epigenetics: the case of C. H. Waddington.

One continuous thread in this volume is the name of Conrad H. Waddington (1905-1975), the developmental biologist known as the inventor of the term epigenetics. After some biographical notes on his life, this article explores the meaning of the Waddingtonian equation and the context wherein it was developed. This equation holds that epigenesis + genetics = epigenetics, and refers in retrospect to the debate on epigenesis versus preformationism in neoclassical embryology. Whereas Waddington actualized this debate by linking epigenesis to developmental biology and preformation to genetics, thereby stressing the importance of genetic action in causal embryology, today's epigenetics more and more offers the possibility to enfeeble biological thinking in terms of genes only, as it expands the gene-centric view in biology by introducing a flexible and pragmatically oriented hierarchy of crucial genomic contexts that go beyond the organism.