I’ve joined a theoretical biology lab (but still focused on reproduction!) for my postdoc and as part of that dive more into philosophy of biology. We discussed this paper (with the authors including PI of the lab) in journal club so I’m going to try and translate it into tweets. https://twitter.com/KLIAustria/status/1355455463152906241

Note – I’m just starting to engage in #philsci so my understanding is likely naïve in places. Please re-direct me as needed or point me towards better explanations/further reading!

This foundation of this paper is thinking about how concepts of the individual shape our understanding of pregnancy. In this context individual has a broad meaning of the boundaries of the phenomenon of interest being studied.

Theoretical approaches to individuals include the physiological (likely the most familiar definition of the boundaries of an organism), evolutionary (the unit of selection), ecological (the networks of interactions), and historical (evo-devo of a phenotype).

I found their quote from Griesemer 2018 helpful to understand this use of individual: [we use concepts of individuality] “in order to tell stories about what goes on in the world, do science, and make attributions of properties, relations, responsibility, … , and standing…”.

In respect to pregnancy, the authors are critiquing the current models that describe two separate physiological individuals – an embryo and a mother (also referred to as a container).

They argue the theoretical lens of the “container” model for pregnancy has resulted in: (1) a greater focus on the placenta (which is embryonic in origin) with less on maternal-fetal interactions & maternal contributions to communication

and (2) assumptions of the dominance of parent-offspring conflict, as seen in the invasiveness of placentation.

Contrary to these assumptions the authors point to recent research demonstrating that (1) the maternal side of the interactions has also evolved and adapted and (2) that the interactions are not only conflict & invasiveness is not the “most” derived form of placenta.

The authors propose the alternative theoretical approach that focuses on the interactions of pregnancy. They suggest that these interactions could be considered a “relational novelty” that can be theorized as a “historic individual”.

The evo-devo understanding of a historic individuality is units that are persistent across evolutionary time and non-exchangeable with other traits. For example, comparative morphology could be considered to study the historic individuals of morphological traits.

Pregnancy as a historic individual (or a “relational unit”) allows for understanding the co-evolutionary changes to both the maternal and offspring systems (and the interdependence of those systems) to support placental reproduction/embryonic development.

For example, the evolution of “relational” abilities in uterine cells that communicate and facilitate the integration of female and fetus. In eutherian mammals, this integration requires thinking about a “single reproductive individual” rather than two entities.

The pregnant female is thus defined as a historic individual for the clearly demarcated transient time it emerges during the reproductive cycle and allows for the specific theorizing of the interactions and changes that occur during pregnancy

The final piece of this paper evaluates their proposed historic pregnant individual relative to criteria of “biological individuality” from physiological, evolutionary and ecological approaches

I found the most intriguing to be ecological individuality which describes the interactions multi-species partnerships and symbioses that together form a system. This approach conceptualizes how individuals and the environment can influence each other (referencing @drlynnchiu)

In conclusion, this paper interrogates western cultural and scientific assumptions that pregnancy involves two individuals and explores how pregnancy can be understood through alternative understandings of “biological individual” as an evo-devo “historical individual”.

My thoughts: Once I released my preconceived notions of “individual” I really liked thinking about how the units of study are demarcated and the implications that has on our thinking about biological systems.

However, I remain a little tentative about the language and efficacy of “individuality” stemming from my unfamiliarity with the philosophical meanings but also because of the implications/misinterpretations for reproductive health care. (Especially re female autonomy)

I am also still contending with how although the definition of individuals can help in thinking and stydying phenomenon in different ways it can also contribute to parsing and breaking up biological systems in other ways that may prevent making connections.

I'm also curious about the use of “mother” and “maternal.” I.e.,how do cultural understandings of “motherhood” influence how we construct the body interacting with the fetus, understand who/what that body is or looks like and how it should act.

I think @kateclancy had a tweet about what other terms could be used instead of maternal.

In addition, the use of “maternal” (and my perpetuation through use of it in this thread) is cis-normative and precludes the inclusion of paternal-fetal interfaces in this conversation.

I am also interested in how this theoretical work is part of a ‘relational turn’ in philosophy of biology and need to read more. I also want to know more about the relationship between relationality in this context with Indigenous epistemologies if anyone has recommendations.

Lastly, I’m curious about applying theories of the individual to post-copulatory interactions and how we conceive an organism defined by its exclusive production of eggs when it also become involved in the development, maintenance, survival, and modification of sperm.