Function by Agreement

References

• Allen, C., M. Bekoff, and G. V. Lauder, eds. 1998. Nature’s purposes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. C., J. E. Dueber, M. Leguia, G. C. Wu, J. A. Goler, A. P. Arkin, and J. D. Keasling. 2010. BglBricks: A flexible standard for biological part assembly. Journal of Biological Engineering 4 (1).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrianantoandro, E., S. Basu, D. K. Karig, and R. Weiss. 2006. Synthetic biology: New engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Molecular Systems Biology 2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arkin, A. 2008. Setting the standard in synthetic biology. Nature Biotechnology 26 (7): 771–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayala, F. J. 1998. Teleological explanation in evolutionary biology. In Nature’s purposes, edited by C. Allen, M. Bekoff, and G. V. Lauder, pp. 29–50. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, B. 1981. On the conventional character of knowledge and cognition. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 303–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, B.. 1982. T. S. Kuhn and social science. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, B., D. Bloor, and J. Henry. 1996. Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. London: Athlone.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, C. L., T. Y. Kim, H. U. Kim, B. O. Palsson, and S. Y. Lee. 2006. Systems biology as a foundation for genome-scale synthetic biology. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 17 (5): 488–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigelow, J., and R. Pargetter. 1998. Functions. In Nature’s purposes, edited by C. Allen, M. Bekoff, and G. V. Lauder, pp. 241–260. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brandon, R. N. 1998. Biological teleology. In Nature’s purposes, edited by C. Allen, M. Bekoff, and G. V. Lauder, pp. 79–98. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brent, R. 2004. A partnership between biology and engineering. Nature Biotechnology 22: 1211–1214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buller, D. J. 1999. Natural teleology. In Function, selection, and design, edited by D. J. Buller, pp. 1–28. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Calvert, J. 2007. Patenting genomic objects: Genes, genomes, function, and information. Science as Culture 16 (2): 207–223.
   Google Scholar
• Canton, B., A. Labno, and D. Endy. 2008. Refinement and standardization of synthetic biological parts and devices. Nature Biotechnology 26 (7): 787–793.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy 72 (20): 741–765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Lorenzo, V., and A. Danchin. 2008. Synthetic biology: Discovering new worlds and new words. EMBO Reports 9: 822–827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty, M. J., and F. H. Arnold. 2009. Direction evolution: New parts and optimized function. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 20: 486–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elton, M. 1998. Persons, animals, and machines. Science, Technology, and Human Values 23 (4): 384–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enç, B., and F. Adams. 1998. Functions and goal directedness. In Nature’s purposes, edited by C. Allen, M. Bekoff, and G. V. Lauder, pp. 371–394. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Endy, D. 2005. Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438 (24): 449–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grünberg, R., and L. Serrano. 2010. Strategies for protein synthetic biology. Nucleic Acids Research 38 (8): 2663–2675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwell, L. H., J. J. Hopfield, S. Leibler, and A. W. Murray. 1999. From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402: C47–C52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann, M., and S. Panke. 2006. Synthetic biology: Putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics 22 (22): 2790–2799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hume, D. [1748] 1999. An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Isaacs, F. J., and J. J. Collins. 2005. Plug-and-play with RNA. Nature Biotechnology 23 (3): 306–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kusch, M. 2002. Knowledge by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levskaya, A., A. A. Chevalier, J. J. Tabor, Z. B. Simpson, L. A. Lavery, M. Levy, E. A. Davidson, A. Scouras, A. D. Ellington, E. M. Marcotte, and C. A. Voigt. 2005. Synthetic biology: Engineering Escherichia coli to see light. Nature 438: 441–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewens, T. 2000. Function talk and the artifact model. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C 31 (1): 95–111.
   Google Scholar
• Lewens, T. 2004. Organisms and artifacts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Longy, F. 2009. How biological, cultural, and intended functions combine. In Functions in biological and artificial worlds, edited by U. Krohs, and P. Kroes, pp. 51–68. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lucks, J., L. Qi, W. R. Whitaker, and A. Arkin. 2008. Towards scalable parts families for predictable design of biological circuits. Current Opinion in Microbiology 11 (6): 567–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLaughlin, P. 2000. What functions explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. G. 1998. In defense of proper functions. In Nature’s purposes, edited by C. Allen, M. Bekoff, and G. V. Lauder, pp. 295–312. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. G. 1999a. Proper functions. In Function, selection, and design, edited by D. J. Buller, pp. 85–96. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. G. 1999b. An ambiguity in the notion “function”. In Function, selection, and design, edited by D. J. Buller, pp. 115–122. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, E. 1961. The structure of science. New York: Harcourt Brace.
   Google Scholar
• Neander, K. 1999. Malfunctioning. In Function, selection, and design, edited by D. J. Buller, pp. 221–232. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perlman, M. 2009. Changing the mission of theories of teleology. In Functions in biological and artificial worlds, edited by U. Krohs, and P. Kroes, pp. 17–36. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, B. 1998. Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. The Journal of Philosophy 95 (5): 215–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston, B. 2009. Biological and cultural proper functions in comparative perspective. In Functions in biological and artificial worlds, edited by U. Krohs, and P. Kroes, pp. 37–50. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Purnick, P., and R. Weiss. 2009. The second wave of synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 10: 410–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quine, W. V. O. 1951. Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60 (1): 20–43.
   Google Scholar
• Quine, W. V. O. 1975. On empirically equivalent systems of the world. Erkenntnis 9 (3): 313–328.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe, M. 2000. The function of function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C 31 (1): 113–133.
   Google Scholar
• Rudwick, M. J. S. 1998. The inference of function from structure in fossils. In Nature’s purposes, edited by C. Allen, M. Bekoff, and G. V. Lauder, pp. 101–116. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruse, M. 2002. Evolutionary biology and teleological thinking. In Functions, edited by A. Ariew, R. Cummins, and M. Perlman, pp. 33–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sauro, H. M. 2008. Modularity defined. Molecular Systems Biology 4: 166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schyfter, P. 2009. The bootstrapped artefact: A collectivist account of technological ontology, functions, and normativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A 40 (1): 102–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schyfter, P. 2012. Technological biology?. Things and kinds in synthetic biology. Biology and Philosophy 27 (1): 29–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Tamsir, A., J. Tabor, and C. A. Voigt. 2011. Robust multicellular computing using genetically encoded NOR gates and chemical “wires”. Nature 469: 212–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, D. 1996. Fitness and function. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4): 553–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, D., and A. Ariew. 1999. A taxonomy of functions. In Function, selection, and design, edited by D. J. Buller, pp. 257–280. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, L. 1973. Functions. The Philosophical Review 82 (2): 139–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh, K. C., S. H. Wu, J. T. Murphy, and J. C. Lagarias. 1997. A cyanobacterial phytochrome two-component light sensory system. Science 277 (5331): 1501–1508.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar