[T]he principle implies that it is impossible to simultaneously both measure the present position while "determining" the future momentum of an electron or any other particle with an arbitrary degree of accuracy and certainty.
Are there analyses in the literature? Which philosophers of science undertake a serious consideration of the principle's implications?
I think this principle is highly abused. Its often used out of context. Especially in terms of our ability to measure things. But it really isn't saying anything about that, it's more a reflection of the fundamental nature of particles. Which must be understood in the context of quantum physics. So much evil is done in the name of quantum physics, by slicing out one aspect and relating it to the world of objects that we perceive as humans.
This is what I come up myself, which in my opinion it is heavily influenced by Buddhism philosophy and koans:
When choosing books I usually imagine the book is a painting, yet I forget to bring my eyeglass. If every time I close my eyes and reopen them I see a new painting, yet I still don't feel vague with it, then that book is worth reading.
This is an example of the uncertainty principle in signal processing:
Not that the principle is not necessary a quantum phenomenon, and has been used as a main metaphor/analogy between Buddhism and science.
B. Alan Wallace (ed), Buddhism and Science: breaking new ground (Columbia Univ Press 2003)
Vetterli, M., et al. Foundations of Signal Processing. Cambridge University Press, 2014.