This intermediate level course introduces the field of philosophy of biology and explores key questions within the contemporary discipline such as the nature and diversity of life on (and off) Earth, what biology can tell us about human nature, the explanatory power of natural selection, the role of modelling in the biological sciences and the extension of evolutionary thinking to the cultural and technological domain. The course draws on material in both philosophy and the life sciences including evolutionary biology, psychology and ecology and students collaborate across these disciplines. Real-life challenges such as the allocation of resources in ecology and conservation biology, the appropriate interpretation of human genetic analyses are engaged with.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

1. critically evaluate arguments in the philosophy of biology, and analyse its core concepts, assumptions, and implications to an intermediate standard;
2. examine and describe major philosophical issues, theories, and positions in the philosophy of biology to an intermediate standard;
3. articulate and defend written arguments for and against positions using rationally persuasive argumentation to an intermediate standard;
4. apply philosophical ideas and arguments creatively to devise innovative solutions addressing fundamental issues and real-world challenges such as the allocation of resources in ecology and conservation biology, and the appropriate interpretation of human genetic analyses; and
5. engage in well-reasoned oral discussion and debate, substantiating viewpoints with justified arguments in the philosophy of biology to an intermediate standard.

Research-Led Teaching

This course focuses on topics which are at the forefront of discussion in Philosophy of Biology today. Contemporary research papers and discussions with contemporary researchers are a feature of this unit. Although a broad range of topics are covered, there is a particular focus on questions relating to human nature, cultural evolution and the evolution of cognition as these are the areas in which the convenor, Dr. Rachael L. Brown is currently completing work. Further to this

Required Resources

All resources will be available on Wattle.

Recommended Resources

All resources are available on Wattle.

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

• written comments
• verbal comments
• feedback to whole class, groups, individuals, focus group etc

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	Introduction to UnitIs there such a thing as "Human Nature"? I	No tutorials this week.
2	Is there such a thing as "Human Nature"? II	No tutorial exercise this week.
3	Do Your Genes Make You Who You Are?	No in-person workshop (Canberra Day Public Holiday) - see Canvas for alternative delivery of material.Tutorial Exercise 1
4	Is it Alive? Defining Life	Tutorial Exercise 2
5	What is Disease?	Tutorial Exercise 3
6	The Metaphysics of Pregnancy	Tutorial Exercise 4
7	Metaphysics of Race	Tutorial Exercise 5
8	Adaptationism and the Orgasm Wars	No in-person workshop (ANZAC Day Public Holiday) - see Canvas for alternative delivery of material.Tutorial Exercise 6
9	Did Darwin Kill Morality?	Tutorial Exercise 7
10	Does Culture Evolve?	Tutorial Exercise 8
11	From Climate to COVID-19: Modeling the World	Tutorial Exercise 8
12	Biodiversity: Why bother?	Tutorial Exercise 9

Tutorial Registration

Via Timetabling

Assessment Summary

Assessment task	Value	Learning Outcomes
Tutorial Exercise Week 3	10 %	1-5
Tutorial exercises Weeks 4-12	70 %	1-5
Workshop Participation	20 %	1-5

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details

Policies

ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines , which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Integrity Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

• Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Extenuating Circumstances Application
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure
• Code of practice for teaching and learning

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Canvas’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.

Participation

As per workshop participation assessment information.

Examination(s)

There are no examinations for this class.

Assessment Task 1

Tutorial Exercise Week 3

For the Week 3 tutorial, you will complete a tutorial exercise as follows as part of your preparation for class and the in-class activities:

(a) Before class, you will write a reading response to a target reading provided on Canvas (400 words) and bring a hard copy to the tutorial. This must include:

• (i) a single-sentence articulation of the thesis of a set target reading;
• (ii) an accurate reconstruction of one argument offered in support of that thesis; and
• (iii) an analysis or critique of the effectiveness of that argument.

(b) At the beginning of the tutorial, you will read and complete peer review on another student’s response (equivalent to 50 words) using the peer-review rubric provided in class.

(c) At the end of the tutorial, you will annotate your original response and write a short self-reflection in light of peer feedback and class discussion (equivalent to 50 words).

Examples will be provided on Canvas and discussed in the Week 2 tutorials.

Submission:

Submission during tutorial in Week 3.

Marking

You receive a mark out of 20, weighted as follows using the attached rubric:

Quality, originality, and clarity of the written response: 50%

Quality of peer review of other students’ work: 25%

Quality, originality, and clarity of self-reflection: 25%

This will be worth 10% of your overall final grade.

Referencing

References to the set target reading do not require citation. References to other sources do require citation using a standard referencing format such as Harvard Author-Date and a reference list should be provided at the end of the document. Citations do not count towards word limits.

Word Limit and Late Policy

The word count for written response should be provided at the bottom of the page. Word count of the written response (i.e. excluding peer review and reflection) must not exceed 400 words. One of the goals of this exercise is to write in a succinct, clear and direct piece of writing, the word limit is part of this. Responses that exceed this limit will incur a 10% penalty (i.e. 2 marks out of the 20 possible for the exercise).

Late submissions for this assessment will not be accepted except where approved in advance or where exceptional circumstances apply, in line with ANU policy and approved Education Access Plans (EAP). Students experiencing significant hardship impacting tutorial attendance during semester (e.g., illness, bereavement, personal crisis) must contact the course convenor as soon as possible via email (rachael.brown@anu.edu.au) to discuss appropriate arrangements. Alternative arrangements may involve substitution or adjustment rather than late submission.

Rubric

	HD	D	C	P	F
Written Response: Weighting: 50% (10 marks) Aligned Class Learning Outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Transdisciplinary GA: Disciplinary analysis and argumentation	Demonstrates excellent critical engagement with the reading(s). Accurately analyses key concepts, assumptions, and implications within the philosophy of biology, and situates them within relevant philosophical debates. Develops a clear, original, and well-defended argument that goes beyond summary. Applies philosophical ideas thoughtfully, including where relevant to real-world or scientific contexts. Writing is precise, coherent, and persuasive, demonstrating strong disciplinary thinking at an intermediate level.	Demonstrates strong engagement with the reading(s) and philosophical issues discussed. Accurately explains key concepts and positions and offers a clear line of argument with some critical evaluation. Shows good understanding of assumptions and implications, with emerging originality. Writing is well structured and clear.	Demonstrates competent understanding of the reading(s) and relevant philosophical issues. Identifies key arguments and concepts but analysis may be limited or uneven. Argument is present but underdeveloped or largely descriptive. Some critical engagement is evident, though disciplinary thinking may lack depth.	Demonstrates basic comprehension of the reading(s) and philosophical topic. Response tends toward summary rather than analysis, with limited evaluation of arguments or assumptions. Argument may be unclear or weakly supported. Writing is intelligible but lacks clarity or focus.	Demonstrates inadequate understanding of the reading(s) or philosophical issues. Little evidence of analysis, argumentation, or disciplinary engagement. Concepts may be misunderstood or misrepresented. Writing is unclear, poorly structured, or substantially incomplete.
Peer Review of Other Student's Work: Weighting: 25% (5 marks) Aligned Class Learning Outcomes: 1, 3, 5 Transdisciplinary GA: Critical engagement with others’ reasoning	Provides a rigorous, constructive, and philosophically informed peer review. Demonstrates careful evaluation of the peer’s argument, use of concepts, assumptions, and reasoning. Feedback is specific, justified, and framed in terms of disciplinary standards (e.g. clarity of argument, strength of reasons, treatment of objections). Engages respectfully and critically, contributing meaningfully to collective learning.	Provides clear and constructive feedback that engages with the peer’s argument and reasoning. Identifies strengths and weaknesses with reference to philosophical criteria, though analysis may be less detailed. Uses the peer review rubric effectively.	Provides relevant but general feedback. Engages with the peer’s work at a descriptive level, with limited critical analysis or philosophical specificity. Some constructive suggestions are offered.	Provides minimal or vague feedback. Limited engagement with the peer’s argument or reasoning. Feedback may focus on surface features rather than philosophical substance.	Peer review is missing, incomplete, or demonstrates little or no engagement with the peer’s work. Feedback is superficial, inappropriate, or not aligned with disciplinary expectations.
Self-Reflection Weighting: 25% (5 marks) Aligned Course Learning Outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Transdisciplinary GA: Reflective disciplinary thinking	Reflection demonstrates strong critical self-awareness. Thoughtfully engages with peer feedback and tutorial discussion to evaluate the strengths, limitations, and assumptions of the student’s own argument. Identifies specific ways in which reasoning, use of concepts, or argumentative structure could be improved. Shows clear evidence of developing disciplinary thinking.	Reflection engages meaningfully with feedback and discussion. Demonstrates awareness of strengths and areas for improvement in philosophical reasoning or argumentation. Reflection is thoughtful, though analysis may be less detailed.	Reflection addresses feedback and/or discussion but remains largely descriptive. Some recognition of learning is evident, though links to disciplinary reasoning may be underdeveloped.	Reflection is brief or superficial. Limited engagement with feedback or discussion, and little evidence of critical self-evaluation.	Reflection is missing, extremely minimal, or does not meaningfully engage with feedback, discussion, or the student’s own reasoning.

Assessment Task 2

Tutorial exercises Weeks 4-12

For each tutorial in Weeks 4–12, you will complete a tutorial exercise as follows as part of your preparation for class and the in-class activities:

(a) Before class, you will write a reading response to a target reading provided on Canvas (400 words) and bring a hard copy to the tutorial. This must include:

• (i) a single-sentence articulation of the thesis of a set target reading reading;
• (ii) an accurate reconstruction of one argument offered in support of that thesis; and
• (iii) an analysis or critique of the effectiveness of that argument.

(b) At the beginning of the tutorial, you will read and complete peer review on another student’s response (equivalent to 50 words) using the peer-review rubric provided in class.

(c) At the end of the tutorial, you will annotate your original response and write a short self-reflection in light of peer feedback and class discussion (equivalent to 50 words).

Examples will be provided on Canvas and discussed in the Week 2 tutorials.

Submission:

You will submit 5 tutorial exercises in total across the semester for grading (i.e. 5 × 500 words = 2500 words in total). You may choose which weeks’ exercises to submit for grading.

Marking

Each submitted tutorial exercise will receive a mark out of 20, weighted as follows using the attached rubric:

Quality, originality, and clarity of the written response: 50%

Quality of peer review of other students’ work: 25%

Quality, originality, and clarity of self-reflection: 25%

The cumulative mark for your 6 tutorial exercises is worth 70% of the final grade for the course.

Referencing

References to the set target reading do not require citation. References to other sources do require citation using a standard referencing format such as Harvard Author-Date and a reference list should be provided at the end of the document. Citations do not count towards word limits.

Word Limit and Late Policy

The word count for written response should be provided at the bottom of the page. Word count of the written response (i.e. excluding peer review and reflection) must not exceed 400 words. One of the goals of this exercise is to write in a succinct, clear and direct piece of writing, the word limit is part of this. Responses that exceed this limit will incur a 10% penalty (i.e. 2 marks out of the 20 possible for the exercise).

Late submissions for this assessment will not be accepted except where approved in advance or where exceptional circumstances apply, in line with ANU policy and approved Education Access Plans (EAP). Students experiencing significant hardship impacting tutorial attendance during semester (e.g., illness, bereavement, personal crisis) must contact the course convenor as soon as possible via email (rachael.brown@anu.edu.au) to discuss appropriate arrangements. Alternative arrangements may involve substitution or adjustment rather than late submission.

Rubric

	HD	D	C	P	F
Written Response: Weighting: 50% (10 marks) Aligned Class Learning Outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Transdisciplinary GA: Disciplinary analysis and argumentation	Demonstrates excellent critical engagement with the reading(s). Accurately analyses key concepts, assumptions, and implications within the philosophy of biology, and situates them within relevant philosophical debates. Develops a clear, original, and well-defended argument that goes beyond summary. Applies philosophical ideas thoughtfully, including where relevant to real-world or scientific contexts. Writing is precise, coherent, and persuasive, demonstrating strong disciplinary thinking at an intermediate level.	Demonstrates strong engagement with the reading(s) and philosophical issues discussed. Accurately explains key concepts and positions and offers a clear line of argument with some critical evaluation. Shows good understanding of assumptions and implications, with emerging originality. Writing is well structured and clear.	Demonstrates competent understanding of the reading(s) and relevant philosophical issues. Identifies key arguments and concepts but analysis may be limited or uneven. Argument is present but underdeveloped or largely descriptive. Some critical engagement is evident, though disciplinary thinking may lack depth.	Demonstrates basic comprehension of the reading(s) and philosophical topic. Response tends toward summary rather than analysis, with limited evaluation of arguments or assumptions. Argument may be unclear or weakly supported. Writing is intelligible but lacks clarity or focus.	Demonstrates inadequate understanding of the reading(s) or philosophical issues. Little evidence of analysis, argumentation, or disciplinary engagement. Concepts may be misunderstood or misrepresented. Writing is unclear, poorly structured, or substantially incomplete.
Peer Review of Other Student's Work: Weighting: 25% (5 marks) Aligned Class Learning Outcomes: 1, 3, 5 Transdisciplinary GA: Critical engagement with others’ reasoning	Provides a rigorous, constructive, and philosophically informed peer review. Demonstrates careful evaluation of the peer’s argument, use of concepts, assumptions, and reasoning. Feedback is specific, justified, and framed in terms of disciplinary standards (e.g. clarity of argument, strength of reasons, treatment of objections). Engages respectfully and critically, contributing meaningfully to collective learning.	Provides clear and constructive feedback that engages with the peer’s argument and reasoning. Identifies strengths and weaknesses with reference to philosophical criteria, though analysis may be less detailed. Uses the peer review rubric effectively.	Provides relevant but general feedback. Engages with the peer’s work at a descriptive level, with limited critical analysis or philosophical specificity. Some constructive suggestions are offered.	Provides minimal or vague feedback. Limited engagement with the peer’s argument or reasoning. Feedback may focus on surface features rather than philosophical substance.	Peer review is missing, incomplete, or demonstrates little or no engagement with the peer’s work. Feedback is superficial, inappropriate, or not aligned with disciplinary expectations.
Self-Reflection Weighting: 25% (5 marks) Aligned Course Learning Outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Transdisciplinary GA: Reflective disciplinary thinking	Reflection demonstrates strong critical self-awareness. Thoughtfully engages with peer feedback and tutorial discussion to evaluate the strengths, limitations, and assumptions of the student’s own argument. Identifies specific ways in which reasoning, use of concepts, or argumentative structure could be improved. Shows clear evidence of developing disciplinary thinking.	Reflection engages meaningfully with feedback and discussion. Demonstrates awareness of strengths and areas for improvement in philosophical reasoning or argumentation. Reflection is thoughtful, though analysis may be less detailed.	Reflection addresses feedback and/or discussion but remains largely descriptive. Some recognition of learning is evident, though links to disciplinary reasoning may be underdeveloped.	Reflection is brief or superficial. Limited engagement with feedback or discussion, and little evidence of critical self-evaluation.	Reflection is missing, extremely minimal, or does not meaningfully engage with feedback, discussion, or the student’s own reasoning.

Assessment Task 3

Workshop Participation

Workshop participation forms a fundamental part of this class.. Students are required to prepare for workshop, to participate in discussion of required pre-workshop materials and undertake activities in-class such as quizzes, short answer questions and practical exercises. Workshop participation will involve some group work such as group discussions and group activities. Where there is no workshop due to public holiday (Weeks 3 and 8) there will be no workshop participation grade given for these weeks, students are, however, still expected to access recorded materials in lieu of the workshop and attend tutorial. This is worth 20% of their overall grade for the course.

Grading

Each student’s participation mark is based in part on the extent to which they come to class well prepared, having done the required reading and having considered the weekly set readings/questions/exercises. It is also based on the extent to which students make a constructive contribution to classroom discussion and group activities. Materials produced in class are also used to assess participation. Rubric attached.

Aligned Course Learning Outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Transdisciplinary GA: Reflective disciplinary thinking, Disciplinary analysis and argumentation, Critical engagement with others’ reasoning

Rubric

	Preparation & Attendance	Philosophical Understanding	Critical Engagement	Engagement & Communication with Others
High Distinction	Attends regularly. Contributions consistently demonstrate extensive preparation and close engagement with readings.	Demonstrates a strong grasp of core concepts, assumptions, and major positions in the class materials.	Critically evaluates arguments and advances discussion through well-reasoned analysis and examples.	Consistently engages constructively with others in discussion, including those approaching issues from different disciplinary perspectives; communicates clearly, respectfully, and collegially.
Distinction	Attends regularly. Contributions demonstrate thorough preparation.	Demonstrates clear understanding of key concepts and issues from class materials.	Critically engages with arguments and contributes meaningfully to discussion.	Communicates clearly and collegially with others; responds appropriately to differing perspectives, including non-philosophical ones.
Credit	Attends regularly. Contributions demonstrate adequate preparation.	Demonstrates basic understanding of core concepts and issues from class materials.	Some critical engagement, though contributions may be limited or uneven.	Generally communicates appropriately with others, though engagement with differing perspectives may be limited.
Pass	Attends some classes. Contributions demonstrate minimal preparation.	Understanding of class materials is largely descriptive or superficial.	Limited critical engagement; contributions rarely analyse arguments.	Communication with others is inconsistent; engagement with differing perspectives is limited.
Fail	Attends few or no classes. Contributions demonstrate no preparation.	Does not demonstrate understanding of core concepts or issues from class materials.	No meaningful critical engagement; contributions, if made, are frequently irrelevant or distracting.	Does not communicate constructively with others.

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.

The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.

The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.

 

The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.

Online Submission

You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.

Hardcopy Submission

Submission of tutorial exercises will be in hardcopy, in person during tutorial.

Late Submission

Late submissions for this assessment will not be accepted except where approved in advance or where exceptional circumstances apply, in line with ANU policy and approved Education Access Plans (EAP). Students experiencing significant hardship impacting tutorial attendance during semester (e.g., illness, bereavement, personal crisis) must contact the course convenor as soon as possible via email (rachael.brown@anu.edu.au) to discuss appropriate arrangements. Alternative arrangements may involve substitution or adjustment rather than late submission.

Referencing Requirements

The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material. Any use of artificial intelligence must be properly referenced. Failure to properly cite use of Generative AI will be considered a breach of academic integrity.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.
In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.

Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Accessibility for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents all ANU students