Previous philosophical work has explored epistemic merits of imprecise concepts, such as integrating explanatory practices, principles, and methods as well as structuring problem agendas (Brigant 2010, Brigant & Love 2012; Neto 2020). I argue that the imprecise concept of diversity plays a specific epistemic role in genomic research, but this epistemic role does not fit into how philosophers have traditionally thought about imprecise concepts. I show how diversity plays a critical epistemic role acting as an epistemic broker, organizing scientific practice to achieve heterogenous research aims. Understanding the risks and benefits of imprecise concepts may help researchers understand why these concepts persist and the consequences of their use in organizing scientific projects. 

The concept of diversity is used widely in genomics (Popejoy & Fullerton 2016; Corpas et al. 2025; Fatumo et al. 2022; Hindorff et al. 2018; Mills & Rahal 2016; Sirugo et al. 2019; Mapes et al. 2020; Conomos et al. 2024), yet there has been little philosophical or scientific work on diversity in human genomics. This is especially surprising given the growing concern that critical questions like what kinds of diversity matter for human genomics have been sidestepped. For example, Lee et al. fear that “calls for diversity” have become unaccountable because researchers have not engaged with the question of what kinds of diversity matter for specific research aims. Without understanding this connection, issues of inequality in genomics will persist. My work uses strategies from philosophical analysis of imprecise concepts to investigate diversity in genomics conceptual imprecision. Previous philosophical work on imprecise concepts showed they can play critical roles in shaping scientific research and setting research priorities for scientific communities (e.g. Watkins & DiMarco 2025; Sarkar 2029; Santana 2014) and that imprecision can allow concepts to take on specific epistemic roles (Brigant 2010, Brigant & Love 2012; Neto 2020; Santana 2014). Building from this work, I provide tools for identifying what kinds of diversity matter and demonstrate that while the concept is imprecise, it plays key socio-epistemic roles. Understanding the ways diversity is being conceptualized in this area enables scientists and policy makers to more precisely and reflexively advocate for the types of diversity that really matter for addressing research questions. 

In my talk, I taxonomize the relationship between different notions of diversity use in  human genomics, and research aims. No such taxonomy has been proposed yet, but it is crucial for addressing ongoing epistemic and ethical challenges in human genomics. My taxonomy can help researchers assess if they are focusing on the kind of diversity that will allow them to achieve their research aims. It can also assist researchers in distinguishing cases when “calls for more  diversity” are more or less rhetorical or important. To do this, I distinguish three common ways researchers conceptualize diversity within genomic studies of complex traits: racial diversity,  diversity of genetic ancestry, and genetic diversity. I then identify three categories of research aims  (both epistemic and normative) increasing diversity is meant to facilitate. Epistemic aims include  increasing diversity to address ongoing methodological issues and to facilitate research on specific research questions. For example, increasing diversity may help researchers better control for the  effects of population structure on their results or allow researchers to make progress on specific research questions, such as exploring issues of structural racism. A non-epistemic aim of increasing diversity is justice. Increasing diversity corrects for under representation of certain marginalized groups in studies and ensures that these groups have access to any future benefits. Mapping the relationship between conceptions of diversity and research aims can also help identify the ways focusing on increasing racial diversity, diversity of genetic ancestry, or genetic may not be sufficient to address important research aims.

This paper examines what counts as a behavioral trait for the purpose of scientific investigation. I develop a cluster of criteria that are neither necessary nor sufficient but provide a reasonable framework for the scientific investigation of behavioral traits. As a result, a basis for normative evaluations emerges that rules some things in (e.g., learning and memory in fruit flies) and other things out (e.g., educational attainment in humans), with attendant consequences for different social and behavioral sciences. 

I develop the concept of methodological shortfall from other existing explanations of science behaving counterintuitively. Methodological shortfall occurs when research communities concentrate their research programs around research questions, but their available methods are constrained in their ability to answer these questions unambiguously. In other words, a research community’s reach exceeds its grasp. I use contemporary behavioral genetics as a case study to demonstrate how the concept of methodological shortfall can help us make sense of ongoing complaints about behavioral genetics research undertaken on humans. Analyzing these issues through the lens of methodological shortfall reveals two paths forward for human behavioral genetics research: (1) continuing to use observational studies like Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and Twin Studies, pursuing incremental improvements such as increased sample sizes, or (2) adopting experimental methodologies that can only be used in model organisms, which means approaching their object of study in an indirect way. After characterizing these two paths, I journey down each one to highlight how that choice impacts epistemic progress. Some researchers in behavioral genetics have chosen to work with model organisms to overcome the methodological barriers inherent in observational studies. I show how their work has generated epistemic progress on central research questions that have not been achieved by those working with human populations. I close with some observations about how the concept of methodological shortfall can contribute to broader discussions within philosophy of science. 

Root formation is a complex developmental process that involves cell elongation, differentiation, lateral root initiation, and responses to environmental factors - all processes dependent on gene products and the proper timing and location of their expression. Previous studies suggest the Arabidopsis thaliana PIRL9 gene could be involved in root development. If PIRL9 is involved in root development, PIRL9 should be expressed in root tissue, and pirl9 mutants should display abnormal phenotypes. To explore PIRL9 gene expression in primary and lateral roots, a reporter gene construct was made by attaching DNA encoding the GUS enzyme to the pirl9 promoter and inserted this construct into the A. thaliana genome.  A. thaliana lines containing this construct were used to examine PIRL9 gene expression in various tissues. In addition, PIRL9 expression was examined along the primary and lateral roots at different developmental stages. In order to elucidate PIRL9 function, primary root length and lateral root number and frequency in pirl9 knockout mutant plants were compared to wild-type controls, as well as in plants defective in a closely related gene, PIRL3. Findings confirm that PIRL9 is expressed in a variety of different developmental contexts, including early embryos at the start of primary root formation, and primary and lateral root tissue. PIRL9 was especially present in primary roots near the formation of lateral roots and lateral root buds. Pirl9 knockout studies revealed the diversity of morphology that A. thaliana primary and lateral roots exhibit under a variety of different environmental conditions.    

Environmental adaptation and species divergence often involve suites of co-evolving traits. Pigmentation in insects presents a variable, adaptive, and well-characterized class of phenotypes for which correlations with multiple other traits have been demonstrated. In Drosophila, the pigmentation genes ebony and tan have pleiotropic effects on flies' response to light, creating the potential for correlated evolution of pigmentation and vision. Here, we investigate differences in light preference within and between two sister species, Drosophila americana and D. novamexicana, which differ in pigmentation in part because of evolution at ebony and tan and occupy environments that differ in many variables including solar radiation. We hypothesized that lighter pigmentation would be correlated with a greater preference for environmental light and tested this hypothesis using a habitat choice experiment. In a first set of experiments, using males of D. novamexicana line N14 and D. americana line A00, the light-bodied D. novamexicana was found slightly but significantly more often than D. americana in the light habitat. A second experiment, which included additional lines and females as well as males, failed to find any significant difference between D. novamexicana-N14 and D. americana-A00. Additionally, the other dark line of D. americana (A04) was found in the light habitat more often than the light-bodied D. novamexicana-N14, in contrast to our predictions. However, the lightest line of D. americana, A01, was found substantially and significantly more often in the light habitat than the two darker lines of D. americana, thus providing partial support for our hypothesis. Finally, across all four lines, females were found more often in the light habitat than their more darkly pigmented male counterparts. Additional replication is needed to corroborate these findings and evaluate conflicting results, with the consistent effect of sex within and between species providing an especially intriguing avenue for further research. 

Cooley, A.M., S. Schmitz, *E. J. Cabrera, *M. Cutter, *M. Sheffield, *I. Gingerich, *G. Thomas, *C. N. M. Lincoln , *V. H. Moore, *A. E. Moore, *S. A. Davidson , *N. Lonberg, *E. B. Fournier, *S. Love, *G. Posch, *M. B. Bihrle, *S. D. Mayer, *K. Om, *L. Wilson, *C. Q. Doe, *C. E. Vincent , *E. R. T. Wong, *I. Wall, *J. Wicks, *S. Roberts (2021). Melanic pigmentation and light preference within and between two Drosophila species. Ecology & Evolution 12 August 2021. doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7998.