Site in English
Site in Spanish
Site in Portuguese

ISHPSSB & ABFHiB 2017 Meeting

Conference board

At this page you can either:

1) Propose an Open Organized Session, inviting other people to contact you and participate in your proposals; or

2) Check existing proposals of Open Organized Sessions, to contact the organizers and eventually to participate in those sessions.

Proposal of open organized session

Submissions are now closed.

If you would like to propose an Open Organized Session, we ask you to consult first the guidelines for organized sessions, and afterwards fill the online form. Your proposal will be posted in this page, in a few days. 

Notice that proposing an Open Organized Session is just a preliminary step for submitting a closed proposal. After posting your proposal and exchanging messages with interested people, you must submit your session to be included in the program, using another online form (see organized sessions). 

For filling the online form, you should have this information:

* Your personal information: Full name; E-mail; Affiliation; Status (student, researcher, professor, etc.) 

* Proposed session title and abstract

The online form for proposal of open organized sessions will be available beginning in August 1st 2016 (now closed).

Proposed open organized sessions

Below this section will appear all proposed open organized sessions. The most recent ones will be posted on the top. There will be no subject, theme or topic classification, here. If you are interested in participating in some of them, you should contact the organizer directly, through the e-mail provided at each proposal. The conference organizers will not be able to help you, you should establish direct contact. When contacting the organizer, send her/him the following information:

* Your personal information: Full name; E-mail; Affiliation; Status (student, researcher, professor, etc.) 

* Your proposed contribution to the organized session: title and abstract (together with any other information that might be relevant)..

Notice that the decision to accept or to decline your contribution is a responsability of the session organizer.

Proposals will be published here from early August 2016 onwards

(8) Title: Collaboration in Contemporary Biosciences: Philosophical and Sociological Perspectives
Proponent: Phillip Honenberger, PhD,
Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College, USA
Abstract:Contemporary bioscience is frequently if not essentially a collaborative enterprise. While much philosophy of biology treats the cognitive and observational agency of single scientists, or an idealized subject, rather than collective activity, as paradigmatic, recent work has argued for shifting to a social-level perspective in the analysis of contemporary science, a perspective within which collaboration would figure more prominently (e.g. Leonelli and Ankeny 2015, 2016). In this session, we seek to advance discussion of the structure of collaborations in contemporary biology, and their lessons for general theories of science or of scientific collaborations (cf. Gerson 2013, Maienschein 1993, Andersen 2015, Wray 2006). Questions to be addressed include: What motivates collaborations in biological science? What are the effects of collaboration on topics addressed, methods utilized, and patterns of publication and citation? How do collaborative projects work – for instance, how are labor and epistemic authority divided among collaborators? Are there structural differences between interdisciplinary and intra-disciplinary collaborative projects in biology, and if so, what are they and what are their effects? Papers draw from both sociological and philosophical resources; indeed, understanding scientific collaboration poses challenges for which an integrated sociological and philosophical approach is especially promising.
Andersen, H. 2016. “Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science.” Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. C 56: 1-10.
Leonelli, S. and Ankeny, R. 2015. “Repertoires: How to Transform a Project into a Research Community.” Bioscience 65 (7): 701-8.
Leonelli, S. and Ankeny, R. 2016. “Repertoires: A post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research.” Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. A 60: 18-28.
Maienschein, J. 1993. “Why Collaborate?” Jour. Hist. Bio. 26 (2): 167-183.
Gerson, E. 2013. “Integration of Specialties: An Institutional and Organizational View.” Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. C 44 (4): 515-524.
Wray, K. B. 2006. “The Epistemic Significance of Collaborative Research.” Philosophy of Science 69 (1): 150-168.

(7) Title: Heredity and Evolution in an Ibero-American Context  (new version)
Proponent: Marsha Richmond, PhD,
Department of History, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA
Abstract: In honor of ISH meeting in South America for the first time, Ana Barahona and I would like to organize a session that examines the history of heredity and evolution in an Ibero-American context.  We welcome papers that present different perspectives about how such studies developed in countries in the Americas, with a particular focus on Latin and South America.  Questions that might be explored include local reception of and responses to different scientific research programs, development of scientific institutions, the role of women in Ibero-American science, the connection of different research programs to those in Spain and Portugal as well as in the U.S. and Europe, etc.  In short, we welcome contributions on various aspects of the life sciences as they developed in an Ibero-American context.

(6) Title: Science and ethics on the application of biogenetic and chemical technologies to large-scale agriculture in the Conesul
Proponent: Luciana Zaterka, PhD, 
Center of Natural and Human Sciences, Federal University of ABC, Brazil
Abstract: In recent decades, there have been numerous debates on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The main question that permeates this discussion concerns its health risks to society and the assessment of environmental impacts on the release of large-scale planting of GMO monocultures which are resistant to chemical pesticides. This symposium aims to discuss scientific, economic and ethical aspects of Commercially Oriented Technoscience in the Americas, specifically in Brazil and Argentina. We focus the discussion on the epistemological relationship between science and technology, in the distinction between science and non science and on the ethical level of responsibility in the use of scientific and technological knowledge.

(5) Title: Innovative proposals to introduce History and Philosophy of Biology in Biology Education
Proponents: Maria Elice Brzezinski Prestes (PhD),
Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Paulo Takeo Sano (PhD),
Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Abstract: In the recent years, much research has been conducted on the introduction of history and philosophy of science (HPS) in science education (Schwartz, 2007; Hudge and Howe, 2009; Lederman, 2015; Dagher, Erduran, 2016). Some of these initiatives are designed to use an explicit and reflective HPS approach as a tool to facilitate the learning of current biological knowledge, as well as to promote informed conceptions of the nature of science among students. Different episodes of the history of biology can be developed as occasion for the active engagement of the students under an inquiry learning approach (Allchin, 2013). Among others, activities for students may include inquiry structured historical narratives, counterfactual histories, replication of historical experiments, virtual learning objects. This section will welcome proposals of multiple didactic strategies and instructional materials to introduce HPS to different levels of biology students, in basic and higher education.

(4) Title: Is the theory of natural selection a good model for cultural evolution?
Proponent: Lorenzo Baravalle (PhD),
Center of Natural and Human Sciences, Federal University of ABC, Brazil
Abstract: Alex Mesoudi (2011), drawing on the pioneering work of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981) and Boyd and Richerson (1985), has recently argued that the time of outlining more rigorously a unified Theory of Cultural Evolution (henceforth TCE) has finally come. In his intentions, such a theory should account for a large set of psychological, sociological, anthropological, historical and economical models in a way that allows to consider particular cultural phenomena as parts of broader evolutionary processes. Mesoudi suggests that TCE should resemble, in some way, the Theory of Natural Selection (hereafter TNS). This assumption has been traditionally challenged from, at least, two different fronts. On the one hand, it is possible to argue (as, for instance, Fracchia and Lewontin 1999 have done) that culture does not, strictly speaking, evolve: it is, therefore, simply idle to attempt to fit social phenomena within a TNS-like theory. One the other hand, a more cautious reaction is to acknowledge that TNS can be interpreted in many different ways and, consequently, that to say that TCE should resemble TNS is not, by itself, very informative. The philosophers and scientists that have tried to spell out the possible similarities between TNS and TCE frequently denied that they could share something more than a “population approach” to their respective objects of study (Lewens 2015). But is this pessimism entirely justified? The answer to this question depends, among other things, on a careful metatheoretical comparison between TNS and the models developed within TCE, which, to date, has been only partially – and probably insufficiently – accomplished. This panel welcomes proposals that, by taking into account the current debate about scientific explanation and theoretical unification, aim to promote novel approaches to the problem at stake – and, possibly, advance some tentative solution.

(3) Title: Political Biology after the Century of the Gene: from fixed genes to plastic genomes
Proponent: Maurizio Meloni (PhD),
Dept. of Sociological Studies,  University of Sheffield, UK
Abstract: Typically represented in the twentieth century by the eugenic movement, the politics of biology during the century of the gene (Keller, 2000) was mostly an attempt to control the distribution of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ genes in a given population. This session will explore the new emerging politics of biology at a time when the notion of a fixed genome is increasingly challenged, and novel postgenomic entanglements of environmental and biological factors are replacing gene-centered explanations. For instance: What is the politics of reproduction and parental responsibility when plenty of environmental exposures (stress, food, or smoking) are thought to have a direct impact on the well-being of offspring? What happens to race in a time when heredity is claimed to be soft again, and past or present social experiences are believed to explain stable biological differences among individuals or groups? What shall we think of groups for too long exposed to famine and violence or exploitation and poverty? Are they damaged and therefore in need of extra-help (Jablonka and Lamb, 2014) or perhaps even reparation? Or, alternatively (Bowler, 1984; Meloni, 2016), will they be viewed as damaged and therefore the bearers of an ‘acquired inferiority’? How will the notion of a  special human plasticity in certain critical windows of development be translated into policy? And how should citizens shape their conduct and lifestyle to take care of a genome now seen as reactive and even vulnerable to environmental exposures?  At a crucial moment of epistemic shift in genomic science, this panel welcomes proposals that focus on the social impact (race, gender, class, risk, responsibility, harm, intervention, normality/abnormality, and citizenship) of a vast constellation of postgenomic disciplines such as epigenetics, nutrigenomics, microbiomics, social neuroscience and in general biological approaches building on concepts like 'the biosocial', plasticity, embodiment, social embedding, reactive or developing genome, and local biology.

(2) Title: Defining the units of conservation: "Whose line is it, anyway?"
Proponent: Matthew K. Chew (PhD),  
Center for Biology and Society, Arizona State University, USA
Abstract: From its arguably datable inception, preserving rare, often over-exploited organisms has been a major objective of the nature conservation movement. Species quickly became the default units of conservation, but systematics, environmental ethics, treaties, laws, and regulations evolve at different rates. This generates a confusing array of ad hoc but actionable definitions supporting controversial status determinations like those affecting Ruddy Ducks in Europe, Guadeloupe Raccoons, Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest, and Australian Dingoes, along with many other animal and numerous plant taxa. I am proposing a session of case studies illustrating and analyzing conflicts between various kinds of authorities over what makes a species for various purposes and whose opinion does (or should) prevail. H, P, SS and multidisciplinary papers are all welcome; case studies can be concept-centric or taxon-centric as long as they are grounded in with real-world controversies. I have quite an array of examples I can choose from, so I will choose my own particular topic in order to accommodate and/or supplement proposals contributed to the session by others.

(1) Title: Organisms and Us
Proponent: Rachel Ankeny (PhD),    
School of Humanities, University of Adelaide, Australia
Abstract: How do researchers learn from and ‘think with’ non-human organisms? In the 20th century, an unprecedented explosion occurred in research (and funding) focused on organisms in the biological/biomedical sciences. The list of research organisms includes hundreds of species, although scholarship in HPS/STS has been heavily focused on so-called 'model organisms.' Yet for every success story, there are many failures of animal modelling and experimentation.  This panel seeks to contribute to the development of a comparative and integrated historical and philosophical account of the changing roles and understandings of organisms in 20th and early 21st century biological/biomedical sciences, as part of a larger funded grant project. The double session aims to focus on species or groups that have been underexplored in the HPS/STS literature as well on applied and translation research. We welcome paper proposals from all methodological perspectives, but are particularly interested in those that explore how biologists cooperate in organismal research, including norms for what count as productive behaviours and practices together with infrastructures, procedures, and institutional and other resources that make it possible to implement such norms.

Brazilian wolf - Lobo guará

ISHPSSB & ABFHiB 2017 Meeting   
International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology (ISHPSSB)   
Associação Brasileira de Filosofia e História da Biologia (ABFHiB)   
São Paulo, Brazil, 16 to 21 July, 2017   

São Paulo, Brazil
16 to 21 July, 2017

Facebook  Twitter