Archive

Archive for March, 2016

Susan Kelly at the Biological Interest Group – Monday 21st March, 2-3pm, Byrne House

March 16, 2016 Leave a comment

You are invited to the next meeting of the Biological Interest Group. It will take place this coming Monday 21st of March. The meeting will be held in the seminar room at Byrne House, from 2-3pm. Participants can bring lunch and drinks if they wish.

Next week we are very pleased to receive the visit of Susan Kelly, from Egenis, discussing her paper “Recontacting in clinical practice: an investigation of the views of healthcare professionals and clinical genetic scientists in the United Kingdom”. Daniele Carrieri, who works with Susan on her project, kindly sent us instructions and descriptions for the two papers they are circulating:

“Dear BIG group,

During the 21st of March BIG meeting Susan Kelly will give an overview of the ‘MAINSTREAMING GENETICS: Recontacting patients in a dynamic healthcare environment’ project.
To help this presentation, and the discussion we are submitting to the BIG group 2 papers (both attached): Paper 1- the main one for you to read, and Paper 2 – the optional one. Both papers should be quite descriptive and simple to read.

Paper 1
This paper is a DRAFT. It is based on interviews conducted with healthcare professionals (HCPs) we haven’t finished all these interviews yet, but, since we have conducted quite a lot already (26/30), we started drafting this paper.
The target journal is Genetics in Medicine – therefore the audience is mainly HCPs , international readership, but mainly from the US.
We would appreciate any comment on the readability and coherence of the paper. In particular any feedback on parts of the text we could cut (given that the draft is currently around 2000 words above the word limit) and/or suggestions for other journals.
We are also aim to write other articles from this data which will be more sociological and ethical. Please do let us know if you find anything in this current draft that feels like a good candidate for a ‘sociological/ethical expansion’.

Paper 2
This paper is published in Genetics in Medicine and is based on a survey of recontacting practices we conducted across genetics centres in the UK. I think this is a very useful reading as it provides more background to Paper 1 and to the whole project ,and it probably explains what ‘recontacting’ is about better than Paper 1.
For even more background information on the research project, please visit: http://ex.ac.uk/mgcc

I have an interview on Monday 21st (with a HCP!). I should hopefully be able to be back before the BIG reading group starts.
Thank you very much in advance, and I look forward to discussing this work with you!”

Please contact Thomas Bonnin (tb391 [at] exeter.ac.uk) if you wish to join the group or for any other information.

Categories: Uncategorized

Flavia Fabris at the Biological Interest Group – Monday 7th March, 2-3pm, Byrne House

March 2, 2016 Leave a comment

Dear all,

You are invited to the next meeting of the Biological Interest Group. It will take place this coming Monday 7th of March. The meeting will be held in the seminar room at Byrne House, from 2-3pm. Participants can bring lunch and drinks if they wish.

Next week we are very pleased to receive the visit of Flavia Fabris, from Sapienza University of Rome. We will be discussing the attached chapter “Canalization and Development: Towards a Process Account of Cryptic Genetic Variability”. The author kindly provided us with some information about the paper, and how we might help:

“The text is a draft of what hopefully will be a chapter of the book on Process Philosophy of Biology that Dan Nicholson and John Dupré are editing. The aim of the chapter is (i) to offer a process account of Waddington’s cryptic genetic variability and (ii) to discuss its implication in contemporary developmental canalization models.

The chapter draws attention on the ontological difference between two assumptions that in literature are often conflated in the explanation of cryptic genetic variability: (i) a substance view of cryptic variability as “evolution’s hidden substrate”, i.e. a pre-existent pool of hidden random genetic variation, (ii) and a process view of cryptic variability as regulated by epigenetic processes evolved because of their contribution to ‘encrypt’ and ‘decrypt’ specific developmental answers in relation to stimuli and environmental contexts. With the general aim to asses Waddington’s ontology of phenotypes as processes, the chapter discusses how these interpretations (i) (ii) differently contribute to Waddington’s model of buffering and cripticity in contemporary genetics and molecular biology researches.

I’d like to receive feedback on the clarity of my argument and how the paper could be improved, both from an historical and a philosophical point of view. In particular, I’d like to receive feedback on (i) the relation between Waddington’s DST approach and his process view, and (ii) on how my analysis on cryptic genetic variation could be further strengthened in relation with its distinction with a substance view.”

Please contact Thomas Bonnin (tb391 [at] exeter.ac.uk) if you wish to join the group or for any other information.

 

Categories: Uncategorized