For centuries, moral philosophy has wrestled with the definition of harm. The idea that one person’s actions can damage another’s well-being underpins applied ethics, moral theory, and most systems of law, yet the fine details remain hotly disputed. Kandlbinder’s starting point is the observation that three well-established accounts dominate the debate. The counterfactual comparative account, championed by Derek Parfit and Joel Feinberg, holds that an event harms someone if they end up worse off than they would have been had the event not occurred. The temporal comparative account defines harm as being worse off after an event than before it. The non-comparative, or causal, account—defended by philosophers such as Elizabeth Harman and Seana Shiffrin—says an event is harmful simply if it causes a person to be in an objectively bad state. None of these is canonically accepted, and each has attracted serious criticism, but all continue to shape moral reasoning in bioethics, law, and policy.

To see how these accounts work, Kandlbinder offers a simple illustration. A man hit on the head with a beer bottle in a bar fight is straightforwardly harmed. On the counterfactual account, he is worse off than he would have been had he stayed home that evening. On the temporal account, he is worse off after the fight than he was at work beforehand. On the non-comparative account, concussion and a painful laceration are objectively bad states, and the bottle caused them. The example seems airtight—but epigenetics, she argues, reveals cracks that run far deeper than this apparently clean case of cause and effect.

The trouble begins with identity. Person-affecting views of harm assume that for an event to count as a harm, it must be harmful to a specific someone with a distinct numerical identity. For much of the twentieth century, that identity was assumed to be fixed by genetics: the unique set of nuclear DNA in each cell, established at conception, defined the biological individual. This genetic essentialism still lingers in legislation and regulation of reproductive technologies. Yet developmental biology has rendered it untenable. Epigenetic mechanisms—chemical modifications that regulate which genes are switched on or off—respond to environmental circumstances, shape phenotypical traits such as appearance, behavior, stress response, and disease susceptibility, and begin operating as early as the embryonic stage. As scholars such as Daniela Cutas and Andrea Smajdor have noted, the new science blurs the boundary between genetics and environment, dissolving the old dichotomies of nature versus nurture and biological versus social.

This shift has consequences for the notorious non-identity problem, introduced by Parfit in 1984. The problem holds that existence-constituting events cannot make a person worse off, because without those events the person would not have existed at all to be harmed. Traditionally confined to reproductive and population ethics, the problem now leaks into the lives of existing people. If even modest environmental shifts alter gene expression, and if such changes are taken to alter identity, then arguably ‘new’ people are being produced all the time—which would make it impossible to classify everyday events as person-affecting harms or benefits on either comparative account. Smajdor has warned that numerical genetic identity can no longer sustain the weight the non-identity problem expects it to bear.

The non-comparative account escapes this identity trap, since it measures harm absolutely—being caused to be in a bad state—rather than by comparison. But it stumbles over two other requirements: a fixed categorization of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ states, and a strict criterion of causation. Both falter under epigenetic scrutiny. Critics including Elisabeth Carlson, Johan Johansson, and Olle Risberg have questioned whether intrinsic harms exist at all, and disability scholarship has shown that lived experience of biological traits is far more ambiguous than generalized intuitions suggest—a caution against embedding anti-disability bias into philosophical definitions of the ‘bad’ state. Epigenetics compounds the ambiguity: as Carlo Dupras and Vardit Ravitsky have observed, an epigenetic change may be adaptive in one context yet harmful in another. Metabolic shifts toward insulin sensitivity triggered by prenatal malnutrition, for instance, can help a fetus survive early life while raising the risk of type 2 diabetes decades later. Moreover, Erla Moormann has argued that epigenetic changes rarely trace back to a single causal event, undermining causation-based accounts that presume the neat linearity of a beer bottle to the skull.

The paper’s most provocative claim goes further still. Drawing on feminist phenomenology—from Iris Marion Young’s account of embodied spatiality to Judith Butler’s argument that identity is co-constituted through relationality—Kandlbinder contends that lived experience, embodiment, and gene expression form a circular system that collectively constitutes identity itself. Environment shapes gene expression; gene expression shapes phenotype; phenotype shapes how a person is perceived and how they move through the world; those experiences in turn reshape biology and identity. On this view, there is no ‘original’ identity that exists prior to and apart from the events that befall a person, which means any account of harm that separates who someone is from what happens to them is conceptually doomed to chase its own tail.

To make the stakes vivid, Kandlbinder constructs a hypothetical figure named Mona, a woman in her thirties who carries epigenetic changes triggered by her mother’s malnutrition during pregnancy. Living in a higher-weight body, she faces chronic weight-based discrimination rooted in social norms; the resulting stress elevates her risk of anxiety, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease; those conditions limit her employment options, deepening financial precarity, which further raises stress levels—all well-studied ‘social determinants of health’ largely outside her control. Where, Kandlbinder asks, in this cascade of entwined circumstances stretching from the prenatal period onward, could one pinpoint a discrete harmful event that made Mona worse off, on any of the three accounts? Her harms are, at the same time, inseparable from who she is.

The proposed way out is methodological rather than destructive. Kandlbinder endorses multi-dimensional accounts of harm, such as Moormann’s, which incorporate lived experience and relationality, and urges that they be merged with relational conceptions of identity like Françoise Baylis’s, in which the self is co-constructed through iterative cycles of private and public interaction—now understood to operate at the molecular as well as the social level. Such a framework would treat benefit and harm as more than additions or subtractions to a person’s well-being, recognizing instead that events constantly reshape identity without thereby dissolving the person altogether. Even the humble bar fight looks different through this lens: rather than a unilateral cause acting on a pre-existing victim, it becomes one strand in a web of sociocultural and embodied conditions. As debates over germline genome editing and epigenetic editing intensify—framed by bodies such as the World Health Organization around imperatives to maximize benefits and minimize harms—philosophy may need to abandon the comfortable fiction of a fixed biological self. What epigenetics ultimately teaches, Kandlbinder concludes, is that harming and benefiting someone cannot be understood apart from understanding who they are becoming.

The timing of Kandlbinder’s analysis is notable. Bioethical attention since the advent of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing has concentrated overwhelmingly on alterations to the nuclear DNA sequence itself, even though germline alterations can also arise through changes to molecular structures other than DNA. Epigenetic editing, which modifies gene expression rather than genes, can influence phenotypic outcomes without touching the underlying sequence, and the article argues that debates about the ‘potential benefits of human genome editing research’ must therefore expand to cover these non-sequence-based mechanisms of biological change.

The epigenetic paradigm also carries implications beyond philosophy seminars. Epigenetic mechanisms influence phenotypic markers including appearance, behavior, stress response, and disease susceptibility, and these processes begin acting as early as the embryonic stage. Because some epigenetic states can be shaped by nutrition, stress, and other environmental conditions, the boundaries between individual responsibility, parental influence, and societal obligation become harder to draw. A trait that diminishes well-being in one sociocultural setting may be neutral or adaptive in another, which complicates any regulatory framework that assumes harms can be identified and attributed in a straightforward manner.

Kandlbinder’s intervention also situates epigenetics within a longer philosophical tradition. The margins of life—its beginning and its end—have long been recognized as especially troublesome for theories of benefit and harm, and questions about whether a person can be harmed before existing or after dying remain unresolved. What the epigenetic paradigm adds is the recognition that such puzzles are no longer confined to the edges of a lifespan. If embodied experience, epigenetic change, and identity are co-constitutive throughout life, then the conceptual work of defining harm must become multi-dimensional and relational, integrating biological, embodied, and sociocultural dimensions rather than treating them as separate spheres.

Subject of Research: The philosophical implications of epigenetic mechanisms for conceptualizing benefit and harm to individuals.

Article Title: Philosophical complications of epigenetic benefit and harm

Article References: Kandlbinder, A. E. (2026). Philosophical complications of epigenetic benefit and harm. Epigenetics Communications, 6(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43682-026-00049-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s43682-026-00049-3

Keywords: epigenetics, harm, benefit, identity, non-identity problem, bioethics, gene expression, well-being, feminist philosophy, genetic essentialism, social determinants of health, philosophy of biology

Kitcher, who serves as the John Dewey Professor Emeritus at Columbia University, has made significant contributions to the philosophy of science, with particular emphasis on the philosophy of biology. His scholarly pursuits demonstrate the bidirectional relevance between natural sciences and the humanities — a relationship he articulates deftly in his writings. The award citation highlights Kitcher’s endeavors to show how life sciences contribute meaningful insights to ethical discourse and how humanistic questions enrich scientific inquiry.

Over an academic career that has extended beyond four decades, Kitcher has authored landmark works that traverse a variety of topics, from the philosophy of mathematics to the implications of climate change. His commitment to understanding and addressing the moral implications of human actions is apparent in his series of Socratic dialogues focused on climate, which he describes as humanity’s most significant challenge. Kitcher emphasizes that philosophy’s role is not limited to theorizing but must also involve engaging with the ethical responsibilities that arise in response to pressing global issues.

At the heart of Kitcher’s philosophy lies the assertion that ethical frameworks should not merely be abstract concepts but should be developed through examining our past and our interactions with humanity. He suggests that to overcome challenges such as climate change and social inequality, society must engage in deeper public deliberations. He argues that a collaborative approach to crafting research agendas, informed by democratic engagement and ethical concerns, is essential for progress. This melding of science with a democratic ethos reflects a comprehensive vision for the future where scientific advancement coexists with ethical responsibility and social justice.

In his seminal work, “The Advancement of Science,” Kitcher critiques simplistic views of scientific progress and urges a more nuanced understanding that takes context into account. He positions scientific research not just as an isolated activity but as one fundamentally entwined with society’s values and priorities. Kitcher’s perspective suggests that the practice of science should have a public dimension, where citizens play an active role in shaping how and what research is conducted, ensuring it aligns with broader societal goals and ethical standards.

Kitcher’s trajectory into philosophy started at the University of Cambridge, where he initially pursued mathematics but was drawn into the history and philosophy of science. His journey reflects a broader intellectual curiosity that embraces various disciplines, culminating in an examination of how biology informs ethical thought. He critiques sociobiological theories that over-simplistically transfer ecological insights to human behavior, advocating instead for a contextual understanding that considers cultural and social complexity.

The philosopher’s reflections extend into the domain of ethics, where he emphasizes the importance of recognizing and addressing the needs of others. His work, “The Ethical Project,” posits that ethics emerges from our inherent capacity to empathize and to understand others’ needs. Kitcher highlights how ethical progress is often achieved through public discourse, where societal norms evolve by expanding our understanding of others, from the abolition of slavery to the empowerment of marginalized groups, including women and the LGBTQ+ community.

Kitcher’s examination of the intersection between scientific inquiry and ethical considerations led him to analyze the Human Genome Project, ultimately illuminating discrepancies between scientific motivations and political agendas. In “The Lives to Come,” he argues that research should prioritize human welfare over nationalistic aspirations. His insights challenge researchers to reflect on the social implications of their work and ensure that scientific progress is aligned with ethical standards.

Through his writings, Kitcher actively promotes an ethical vision of democracy; one that surpasses traditional voting mechanisms and emphasizes the necessity of informed public involvement in decision-making processes. By advocating for a ‘virtuous spiral’ between scientific advancement and democratic engagement, Kitcher lays a philosophical foundation for working towards a society that prioritizes ethical responsibility and communal effort.

Education also occupies a central place in Kitcher’s philosophy, underlining its role in nurturing informed and active citizens. In “The Main Enterprise of the World,” he advocates for an educational framework that empowers children to understand their agency in society. Kitcher delineates three core objectives of education: facilitating children’s ability to contribute meaningfully to society, promoting cooperative citizenship, and helping individuals navigate their own life decisions autonomously.

In terms of climate change, Kitcher’s perspective underscores the magnitude of the global challenge and the necessity for collective action. He stresses that without substantial cooperation between nations, the complexities of climate issues will remain inadequately addressed. Kitcher identifies himself as a “diagnostician,” someone who articulates the pressing realities facing society rather than directly engaging in political activism. His role is one of enlightening audiences about moral and social challenges and encouraging others to take action based on informed perspectives.

Kitcher ultimately advocates for a holistic view of philosophy as a ‘superdiscipline’ that synthesizes knowledge from multiple fields to provide a comprehensive understanding of human existence. He believes that literature, history, and the arts contribute essential insights into the human condition, which should inform philosophical inquiry and ethical judgment. By integrating various forms of knowledge, Kitcher positions philosophy at the nexus of understanding humanity’s complexities and aspirations.

Philip Kitcher’s scholarship promotes a philosophical inquiry that is deeply engaged with the ethical challenges of our time. His innovative perspectives not only bridge the gap between science and the humanities but also serve as a guide for navigating the moral implications of scientific advancement. As Kitcher continues to explore these vital intersections, his work remains a pivotal reference point for future inquiries into the philosophy of science and ethics, underscoring the enduring relevance of intellectual curiosity in addressing society’s most pressing concerns.

Subject of Research: Philosophy of science, ethics, education, climate change
Article Title: Philip Kitcher Awarded BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge Award for Contributions to Philosophy
News Publication Date: October 2023
Web References:
References:
Image Credits: Credit: BBVA FOUNDATION

Keywords: Philosophy, Ethics, Science, Education, Climate Change, Democracy, Humanities

Holobionts challenge traditional views of individuality in organisms. Dr. Skillings emphasizes that the previously held belief that entities such as corals or lichens were rare anomalies has evolved into a revolutionary perspective. The notion that every organism—from the tiniest bacteria in our guts to the expansive coral reefs—constitutes a holobiont suggests a fundamental interconnectedness in life forms across the planet. In this framework, a human being can be viewed not just as a standalone organism but as a complex ecosystem teeming with numerous microorganisms that play critical roles in health and functionality.

The study highlights the dual nature of organisms: while each appears as a singular entity, they are also composed of multiple species coexisting in mutual relationships. For example, the human microbiome, a collection of trillions of microbes residing in and on our bodies, helps our immune system function properly and influences our metabolism. This insight urges a reconsideration of our approach to health and biology, prompting questions about diet, lifestyle, and therapeutic interventions that may enhance our well-being by considering the intricate relationships within our holobionts.

Dr. Skillings spearheads an interdisciplinary research team that includes notable figures from various academic fields. Dr. Ben Allen, a mathematician from Emmanuel College, is tasked with creating models that predict the development of cooperative behavior in groups. His work is complemented by Dr. Rory Smead from Northeastern University, whose expertise in game theory provides valuable insights into the strategic dynamics of cooperation. Additionally, Dr. Patrick Forber from Tufts University enriches the team with his exploration of how seemingly spiteful behaviors could have historically evolved to enhance group cooperation. This collaboration exemplifies the merging of philosophical inquiry with quantitative modeling, fostering a rich dialogue for exploring the depths of complex biological interactions.

Recognizing the parallels between cooperation in single populations and multi-species interactions found in holobionts, the research team seeks to build models that enhance our understanding of these dynamics. As they unpack the intricate web of relationships that define both singular organisms and collective entities, this study aims to contribute significantly to various fields, including ecology, medicine, and social sciences. The dialogue among these scholars promises to yield innovations in how we perceive relationships not only among species but also within human communities and social structures.

In pursuit of these objectives, the grant will also fund a series of weeklong events that aim to bridge the gap between philosophers and biologists. Dr. Skillings firmly believes that collaboration fosters an environment ripe for unexpected discoveries. These convergences will allow for the exchange of ideas that could challenge existing paradigms and uncover new questions previously unconsidered, nurturing a fertile ground for academic and practical advancements.

The implications of this research extend beyond academic inquiry. As the study examines the impact of holobionts on health and diet, it opens the conversation about the importance of recognizing the multifaceted aspects of well-being. The microbial communities within humans not only play a role in digestion and immunity but may also influence mood, behavior, and overall health. Acknowledging this complexity can lead to a more holistic understanding of nutrition and healthcare, emphasizing the significance of maintaining a balanced microbial ecosystem for optimal health outcomes.

Reinforcing the urgency of this research, Dr. Skillings highlights the environmental aspect of holobionts. As human-induced changes to ecosystems threaten biodiversity worldwide, understanding the intricate interactions within holobionts can guide conservation practices. The fragile balance of relationships within these systems may hold keys to restoring ecosystems, enhancing resilience, and fostering sustainable practices that reflect the interconnectedness of all life.

This ambitious project marks a significant milestone for UNCG’s Department of Philosophy, as it is the largest grant ever awarded in the department’s history. Dr. Skillings, who has previously received funding from the Templeton Foundation for work on holobiont systems, is recognized for his innovative approaches to philosophical questions surrounding biology. This latest grant not only underscores the relevance of philosophical inquiry in scientific discussions but also showcases the foundation’s commitment to supporting interdisciplinary research that inspires awe and wonder.

As this research progresses, the integration of philosophy and biology will likely yield novel insights that challenge our understanding of life itself. The holistic approach offers a promising avenue for unraveling the complexities of relationships among all living beings, shedding light on the essence of cooperation, and redefining what it means to be an organism in today’s world.

Ultimately, this study heralds a new era of research that seeks to illuminate the profound connections across the spectrum of life. By examining the evolutionary trajectories that led to goal-directed behavior in collective entities, the research team aims to make contributions that resonate through multiple spheres of inquiry. As our understanding of holobionts evolves, so too could our approaches to health, conservation, and the philosophical underpinnings of life itself, unlocking pathways to a deeper comprehension of the world we share.

This innovative investigation exemplifies the power of collaboration across disciplines, revealing the intricate tapestry of life where each thread—each organism—plays a role in the larger narrative. The findings of this research could potentially reshape not only scientific paradigms but also societal perceptions of our place within the biological world, emphasizing the interconnected destinies of all species sharing this planet.

This grant represents a pivotal stride in illuminating the complex dynamics of life, urging us to reconsider our definitions of individuality, health, and our collective responsibility toward the planet we inhabit together. The journey ahead promises to be rich with discovery, continually challenging us to deepen our understanding of the marvels of life and its indelible interconnectedness.

Subject of Research: Emergence and evolution of goal-directed behavior in collective entities.
Article Title: Groundbreaking Research on Holobionts: Reimagining Life as Interconnected Systems
News Publication Date: [Insert Date]
Web References: [Insert URL]
References: [Insert References]
Image Credits: [Insert Image Credits]
Keywords: Holobiont, Collective Entities, Goal-directed Behavior, Interdisciplinary Research, Ecology, Biodiversity, Human Health, Conservation.