L’imprévisibilité de la science : un argument pour la liberté de recherche ? La découverte des ARNi comme étude de cas

Authors

  • Baptiste Bedessem Université Grenoble Alpes

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20416/lsrsps.v5i1.6

Keywords:

scientific freedom, scientific autonomy, governance of science, RNAi, use-inspired research

Abstract

The unpredictability of the development of science is often invoked to defend the epistemic value of a free, curiosity-driven, disinterested research, against its finalization by practical objectives. My work aims at initiating a rigorous critical analysis of this “unpredictability argument”. To do so, I consider a case study: the discovery of the RNA interference. I show that the use of this episode to defend a principle of scientific autonomy is misleading. In this case indeed, the unpredictable part of the discovery emerged from use inspired science, whereas basic research only generated predictable results. I suggest that the unpredictability argument, often used in a superficial way, misses its target by mixing the question of the genesis and that of the management of the unexpected. The distinction of these two aspects of the problem is necessary, I contend, to evaluate the value and the limits of the unpredictability argument.

References

BEDESSEM, Baptiste, RUPHY, Stéphanie. Pure science vs. use-inspired science: the unexpected might not be where you expect. Soumis.
BEN-ARI, Yehezke. 2016. La découverte est-elle soluble dans les chiffres de l’excellence ? Le Monde, 5 avril 2016.
BOSHER, Julia, LABOUESSE, Michel. 2000. RNA interference: genetic wand and genetic watchdog. Nature Cell Biol, 2, E31E36.
BRABEN, Donald. 2008. Scientic Freedom. The Elixir of Civilization. John Wiley & Sons.
CARRIER, Martin. 2004a. Knowledge and Control: On the Bearing of Epistemic Values in Applied Science. In Science, Values and Objectivity. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press. 275-293.
CARRIER, Martin. 2004b. Knowledge gain and practical use: Models in pure and applied research. In Laws and Models in Science. London : King’s College Publications. 1-17.
CARRIER, Martin. 2011. Knowledge, Politics, and Commerce: Science Under the Pressure of Practice. In Science in the Context of Application. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 11-30.
EG. 2004. Les États généraux de la recherche : 9 mars-9 novembre 2004. Paris : Tallandier.
FIRE, Andrew, ALBERTSON, Donna, HARRISON, Susan, MOERMAN, Don. 1991. Production of antisense RNA leads to selective and specific inhibition of gene expression in C. Elegans muscle. Development, 113, 503-514.
FIRE, Andrew, XU, SiQun, MONTGOMERY, Mary, KOSTAS, Samuel, DRIVER, Samuel, MELLO, Craig. 1998. Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in caenorhabditis elegans. Nature, 391, 808-810.
IZANT, Jonathan, WEINTRAUB, Harold. 1984. Inhibition of thymidine kinase gene expression by anti-sense rna: A molecular approach to genetic analysis. Cell, 36, 1007-1015.
IZANT, Jonathan, WEINTRAUB, Harold. 1985. Constitutive and conditional suppression of exogenous and endogenous genes by anti-sense RNA. Science, 229, 345-352.
JESSUS, Catherine. 2017. Étonnant vivant. Découverte et promesses du XXIe siècle. CNRS Éditions.
KUMMERFELD, Eric, ZOLLMAN, Kevin. 2016. Conservatism and the Scientificc State of Nature. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 1057-1076.
MELLO, Craig, CONTE, Darryl. 2004. Revealing the world of RNA interference. Nature, 431, 338-342.
MELTON, Douglas. 1985. Injected anti-sense RNAs specifically block messenger RNA translation in vivo. PNAS, 82, 144-148.
MONTHUBERT, Bertrand. 2011. Plan cancer, plan Alzheimer : la recherche en souffrance. Mediapart, 20 oct. 2011.
MORRISON, Margaret. 2011. Between the Pure and Applied: The Search for the Elusive Middle Ground. In Science in the Context of Application. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 31-46.
NAPOLI, Claudio, LEMIEUX, Christine, JORGENSEN, Roberta. 1990. Introduction of a chimeric chalcone synthase gene into petunia results in reversible co-suppression of homologous genes in trans. The Plant Cell, 2, 279-289.
NELLEN, Wolfgang, LICHTENSEIN, Conrad. 1993. What makes an mRNA anti-sensi-itive? Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 18(11), 419-423.
POLANYI, Mickael. 1962. The Republic of Science: its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva, 1, 54-74.
PROCHIANTZ, Alain. 2013. La cité des sciences, les sciences dans la cité. In Science et Démocratie, Communication au Colloque de rentrée 2013 du Collège de France.
RESNIK, David. 2009. Playing Politics with Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
RUPHY, Stéphanie. 2017. La science doit-elle être autonome pour être utile ? In GUAY, Alexandre, RUPHY, Stéphanie (Eds.). Science, Philosophie, Société, PUFC, 61-79.
SCHAUZ, Désirée. 2014. What is basic research? Insights from historical semantics. Minerva, 52, 273-328.
SMITH, Coral et al. 1988. Antisense RNA inhibition of polygalacturonase gene expression in transgenic tomatoes. Nature, 334, 724-726.
STOKES, Donald. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant-Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press.
THERY, Frédérique. 2013. L’importance biologique des ARN non codants : perspectives historique et philosophique. Th. doctorat. Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.
VAUCHERET, Hervé et al. 1998. Transgene-induced gene silencing in plants. Plant J., 16, 651-659.
WATERHOUSE, Peter, GRAHAM, Michael, WANG, Ming-Bo. 1998. Virus resistance and gene silencing in plants can be induced by simultaneous expression of sense and antisense RNA. PNAS, 95, 13959-13964.
WILHOLT, Torsten, GLIMELL, Hans. 2011. Conditions of Science: The Three-Way Tension of Freedom, Accountability and Utility. In Science in the Context of Application. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 351-370.

Published

2018-09-27

How to Cite

Bedessem, Baptiste. 2018. “L’imprévisibilité De La Science : Un Argument Pour La Liberté De Recherche ? La découverte Des ARNi Comme étude De Cas”. Lato Sensu: Revue De La Société De Philosophie Des Sciences 5 (1):37-43. https://doi.org/10.20416/lsrsps.v5i1.6.