Search

My effort to address the comments made by the two distinguished scholars (to "negate their negations" as it were), consists of three steps. I will start with a brief resume of Hegel's dialectical logic, to provide a scaffold for the debate. Subsequently, I will address the comments made. In the case of Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, I will focus on his reference to Althusser. In the case of Bart Gremmen, I will focus on the dialectics of biology (on biology as an inherently dialectical science), notably on his reference to Mendel. Finally, I will address the tension between the conceptual and the empirical dimension of philosophical scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Friedrich Engels' dialectical assessment of modern science resulted from his fascination with the natural sciences (cell physiology, thermodynamics, theory of evolution) in combination with his resurging interest in the work of "old Hegel." Engels became especially interested in what he saw as the molecular essence of life, namely proteins or, more specifically, albumin (Eiweiß), seeing life as the mode of existence of these enigmatic substances. Hegelian dialectics is crucial for a dialectical materialist understanding of contemporary techno-science. The dialectical materialist understanding of technosci-ence as a research practice builds on Engels, but also on later (scientific) authors who were inspired by his writings, e.g., life scientists such as Haldane and Bernal. Considering the criticism raised against Engels' dialectics by 20th-century Marxists, a dialectical diagnostic of contemporary technoscience can be achieved, which shifts the focus from artificial albumin as "living matter" (as discussed by Engels) to contemporary research on synthetic cells (as anticipated by Engels). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses three paradoxes of biomimicry. First of all: how can biomimicry be as old as technology as such and at the same time decidedly innovative and new? Secondly: how can biomimicry both entail a 'naturalisation' of technology and a 'technification' of nature? And finally: how can biomimicry be perceived as nature-friendly but at the same time (potentially at least) as a pervasive biotechnological assault on nature? Contemporary (technoscientific) biomimicry, I will argue, aims to mimic nature at the level of biomolecular processes and structures: contemporary biomimicry as micro-biomimicry. Moreover, building on Aristotle, Delbrück and Schrödinger, I will emphasise that what is mimicked by contemporary (technoscientific) biomimicry, in contrast to traditional (artisanal) instances of biomimicry, is not the morphological form (ε-δος), but rather the program or formula (λόγος) of living systems. Contemporary biomimicry is 'in accordance with nature', but not in the traditional sense. Rather, building on decades of biomolecular research, it strives to reconcile nature and technology against the backdrop of advanced technicity. But biomimetics will only achieve its goals if it is not pursued purely as a technological endeavour, but complemented by an ethos of sustainability and respect for nature. These claims will be elucidated with the help of two case studies: a research project (namely the BaSyC project, launched in 2017 and aimed at producing a synthetic cell) and a science novel (namely Ian McEwan's Solar, which concerns the epistemic and moral challenges involved in artificial photosynthesis). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the Netherlands, and the work of man to gradually cultivate a landscape out of diffuse nature. How the Dutch determined the conditions that allowed different aspects of nature to present themselves; Discussion of moral geography and that different types of landscape are read as a manifestations (or materializations) of different moral attitudes towards nature, whereas concrete landscape interventions are interpreted as instances of moral criticism directed towards the activities and values of previous generations; View that this process (the genesis of the Dutch landscape) is being reversed, as diffuse, wetland nature is experiencing a come-back; Biblical passage from Genesis (1:9-10) about God gathering the waters into one place, in order to let the dry land appear.

• This paper presents a philosophical assessment of synthetic cell research. • Synthetic cell research aims to bridge the divide between the organic and the inorganic, the natural and the artificial. • we focus on a particular project (BaSyC), thereby bridging the gap between the life sciences and the humanities. • we focus on the concept of aura to compare genuine biological cells with technological replicas. Synthetic biology is often seen as the engineering turn in biology. Philosophically speaking, entities created by synthetic biology, from synthetic cells to xenobots, challenge the ontological divide between the organic and inorganic, as well as between the natural and the artificial. Entities such as synthetic cells can be seen as hybrid or transitory objects, or neo–things. However, what has remained philosophically underexplored so far is the impact these hybrid neo–things will have on (our phenomenological experience of) the living world. By extrapolating from Walter Benjamin's account of how technological reproducibility affects the aura of art, we embark upon an exploratory inquiry that seeks to fathom how the technological reproducibility of life itself may influence our experience and understanding of the living. We conclude that, much as technologies that enabled reproduction corroded the aura of original artworks (as Benjamin argued), so too will the aura of life be under siege in the era of synthetic lifeforms. This article zooms in on a specific case study, namely the research project Building a Synthetic Cell (BaSyC) and its mission to create a synthetic cell–like entity, as autonomous as possible, focusing on the properties that differentiate organic from synthetic cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]