Concepts of Actionability in Precision Oncology

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Benjamin Chin-Yee, A. Plutynski
{"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.
精准肿瘤学中可操作性的概念
“可操作性”是精准肿瘤学的一个关键概念。然而,它的确切定义仍有争议。本文对“可诉性”进行了哲学分析,以帮助澄清概念。我们绘制了可操作性的不同概念,认为每个概念最好被理解为一个上下文客观类别,以减轻“概念滑移”的风险。我们捍卫“互动多元主义”,承认需要不同的概念,但也需要实践中的概念互动。因此,本文为实践者和哲学家提供了见解,为科学家和临床医生阐明了可操作性的方法,同时也作为一个案例研究来测试关于科学多元化的相互竞争的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
128
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信