Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:43:31.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Microscopes to Optogenetics: Ian Hacking Vindicated

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

John Bickle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I introduce two new tools in experimental neurobiology, optogenetics and DREADDs (designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs). These tools permit unprecedented control over activity in specific neurons in behaving animals. In addition to their inherent scientific interest, these tools make an important contribution to philosophy of science. They illustrate the very premises of Ian Hacking’s “microscope” argument for the relative independence of experiment from theory. This new example is important for generalizing Hacking’s argument because the background sciences (optics for microscopes, molecular biology for optogenetics, and DREADDs) and the fields of engineering producing these tools differ significantly.

Type
Cognitive Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 5 , December 2018 , pp. 1065 - 1077
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamantidis, A. R., Zhang, F., Aravanis, A. M., Deisseroth, K., and de Lecea, L.. 2007. “Neural Substrates of Awakening Probed with Optogenetic Control of Hypocretin Neurons.” Nature 450:420–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atanosova, N. 2015. “Validating Animal Models.” Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 30 (2): 163–81..Google Scholar
Bickle, J. 2003. Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickle, J. 2016. “Revolutions in Neuroscience: Tool Development.” Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. doi:10.3399/fnsys.2016.00024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, C. F. 2007. Explaining the Brain. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crick, F. 1999. “The Impact of Molecular Biology on Neuroscience.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 354:2021–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deisseroth, K. 2015. “Optogenetics: 10 Years of Microbial Opsins in Neuroscience.” Nature Neuroscience 18 (9): 1213–25..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goshen, I. 2014. “The Optogenetic Revolution in Memory Research.” Trends in Neurosciences 37:511–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkin, A. L., and Huxley, A. F.. 1952. “The Components of Membrane Conductance in the Giant Axon of Loligo.” Journal of Physiology 116:449–72.Google ScholarPubMed
Liu, X., Ramirez, S., Pang, P. T., Puryear, C. B., Govindarajan, A., Deisseroth, K., and Tonegawa, S.. 2012. “Optogenetic Stimulation of a Hippocampal Engram Activates Fear Memory Recall.” Nature 484:381–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramirez, S., Liu, X., Lin, P. A., Suh, J., Pignatelli, M., Redondo, R. L., Ryan, T. J., and Tonegawa, S.. 2013. “Creating a False Memory in the Hippocampus.” Science 341:387–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, A. J., Landreth, A., and Bickle, J.. 2014. Engineering the Next Revolution in Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. 2010. “Reconsidering Spatial Memory and the Morris Water Maze.” Synthese 177 (2): 261–83..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, X., Lee, A., Limapichat, W., Dougherty, D. A., and MacKinnon, R.. 2010. “A Gating Charge Transfer Center in Voltage Sensors.” Science 328:67–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed