{"title":"Concepts of Actionability in Precision Oncology","authors":"Benjamin Chin-Yee, A. Plutynski","doi":"10.1017/psa.2023.115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n “Actionability” is a key concept in precision oncology. Its precise definition, however, remains contested. This paper undertakes a philosophical analysis of “actionability” to aid in conceptual clarification. We map distinct concepts of actionability, arguing that each is best understood as a contextually objective category articulated to mitigate risk of “conceptual slippage.” We defend “interactive pluralism,” acknowledging the need for distinct concepts but also for conceptual interaction in practice. This paper thus offers insights for both practitioners and philosophers, clarifying approaches to actionability for scientists and clinicians and also serving as a case study to test competing views on scientific pluralism.","PeriodicalId":54620,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.115","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
“Actionability” is a key concept in precision oncology. Its precise definition, however, remains contested. This paper undertakes a philosophical analysis of “actionability” to aid in conceptual clarification. We map distinct concepts of actionability, arguing that each is best understood as a contextually objective category articulated to mitigate risk of “conceptual slippage.” We defend “interactive pluralism,” acknowledging the need for distinct concepts but also for conceptual interaction in practice. This paper thus offers insights for both practitioners and philosophers, clarifying approaches to actionability for scientists and clinicians and also serving as a case study to test competing views on scientific pluralism.
期刊介绍:
Since its inception in 1934, Philosophy of Science, along with its sponsoring society, the Philosophy of Science Association, has been dedicated to the furthering of studies and free discussion from diverse standpoints in the philosophy of science. The journal contains essays, discussion articles, and book reviews.