C harles W olfe , La philosophie de la biologie avant la biologie. Une histoire du vitalisme , Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2019, 514 pp., €56 (paperback)/€93 (hardback)

A lban F rei , Sichtbare Netzwerke. Forschungspolitik und Life - Sciences zwischen 1990 und 2016 in der Schweiz. Eine Fallstudie zu SystemsX.ch , Zürich: Chronos Verlag, 2018, 272 pp., CHF 38.00/EUR 38.00

A listair S ponsel , Darwin’s Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018, x + 358 pp., $50.00.

C hristopher J. A ustin , Essence in the age of evolution: a new theory of natural kinds , New York and Oxon: Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2019, 144 pp., £115.00

The commercialization of the biomedical sciences: (mis)understanding bias Abstract The growing commercialization of scientific research has raised important concerns about industry bias. According to some evidence, so-called industry bias can affect the integrity of the science as well as the direction of the research agenda. I argue that conceptualizing industry’s influence in scientific research in terms of bias is unhelpful. Insofar as industry sponsorship negatively affects the integrity of the research, it does so through biasing mechanisms that can affect any research independently of the source of funding. Talk about industry bias thus offers no insight into the particular epistemic shortcomings at stake. If the concern is with the negative effects that industry funding can have on the research agenda, conceptualizing this influence as bias obscures the ways in which such impact is problematic and limits our ability to offer solutions that can successfully address the concerns raised by the growing role of private funding in science.

R ussell B onduriansky & T roy D ay , Extended heredity : a new understanding of inheritance and evolution , Princeton University Press, 2018, 288 pp, ISBN 9780691157672

Time to elaborate on some of Scholander’s ideas: Does even a rudimentary form of the response of diving mammals exist in humans?

The galaxy of the non-Linnaean nomenclature Abstract Contrary to the traditional claim that needs for unambiguous communication about animal and plant species are best served by a single set of names (Linnaean nomenclature) ruled by international Codes, I suggest that a more diversified system is required, especially to cope with problems emerging from aggregation of biodiversity data in large databases. Departures from Linnaean nomenclature are sometimes intentional, but there are also other, less obvious but widespread forms of not Code-compliant grey nomenclature. A first problem is due to the circumstance that the Codes are intended to rule over the way names are applied to species and other taxonomic units, whereas users of taxonomy need names to be applied to specimens. For different reasons, it is often impossible to refer a specimen with certainty to a named species, and in those cases an open nomenclature is employed. Second, molecular taxonomy leads to the discovery of clusters of gene sequence diversity not necessarily equivalent to the species recognized and named by taxonomists. Those clusters are mostly indicated with informal names or formulas that challenge comparison between different publications or databases. In several instances, it is not even clear if a formula refers to an individual voucher specimen, or is a provisional species name. The use of non-Linnaean names and formulas must be revised and strengthened by fixing standard formats for the different kinds of objects or hypotheses and providing permanent association of ‘grey names’ with standardized source information such as author and year. In the context of a broad-scope revisitation of aims and scope of scientific nomenclature, it may be worth rethinking if natural objects like plant galls and lichens, although other than the ‘single-entity’ objects traditionally covered by biological classifications, may nevertheless deserve taxonomic names.

How to produce ‘marketable and profitable results for the company’: from viral interference to Roferon A Abstract This paper looks at the commodification of interferon, marketed by Hoffmann La Roche (short: Roche) as Roferon A in 1986, as a case study that helps us understand the role of pharmaceutical industry in cancer research, the impact of molecular biology on cancer therapy, and the relationships between biotech start-ups and established pharmaceutical firms. Drawing extensively on materials from the Roche company archives, the paper traces interferon’s trajectory from observed phenomenon (viral interference) to product (Roferon A). Roche embraced molecular biology in the late 1960s to prepare for the moment when the patents on some of its bestselling drugs were going to expire. The company funded two basic science institutes to gain direct access to talents and scientific leads. These investments, I argue, were crucial for Roche’s success with recombinant interferon, along with more mundane, technical and regulatory know-how held at Roche’s Nutley base. The paper analyses in some detail the development process following the initial success of cloning the interferon gene in collaboration with Genentech. It looks at the factors necessary to scale up the production sufficiently for clinical trials. Using Alfred Chandler’s concept of ‘organizational capabilities’, I argue that the process is better described as ‘mobilisation’ than as ‘translation’.

R ussell W inslow , Organism and environment: inheritance and subjectivity in the life sciences . Lexington: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017, 246 pp., $95.00