Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
large networks without relying on functional considerations, the question of the
'holism' of systems biology, and the epistemic value of the 'systeome' project
that aspires to become the cutting edge of the field.
1.
INTRODUCTION
New scientific theories are not made out of nothing. Although departing and
emancipating themselves from their predecessors more or less radically, they
typically incorporate elements from predecessor theories such as definitions,
interpretations of phenomena, and models. Similarly, the wider scientific fields
in which theories are embedded remain to some extent tributary to older fields,
e.g., by retaining problems, explanatory strategies, experimental techniques, or
data sets. A scientific field often (but not always) also comprises laws and
theories that aim to realize its explanatory goals. Although we will refer to
many of these elements throughout this chapter, our emphasis is more narrowly
on theory dynamics, leaving the treatment of other aspects of the emerging
field of systems biology for another occasion.
1
Systems biology is a particularly
interesting candidate for investigating the dynamics that underlie the formation
of new scientific fields because it assimilates models from various older theories
as well as special kinds of data sets from data-driven research programs ('omics')
that grossly lack a theoretical perspective. Systems biology promises to merge
all these elements into a new framework that continuously extends and modifies
the models that originally inspired it.
As a science in the making, systems biology stirs debates in which conceptual
and empirical issues are so entangled that progress would seem to require the
combined efforts of scientists and philosophers acting as conceptual analysts (see
Callebaut, 2005 and Krohs, 2006a, for reflections on the nature of philosophy of
biology). The 'new' philosophy of biology that originated some three decades
ago has long focused almost exclusively on issues in evolution and systematics
(see, e.g., Sober, 2006). As a positive result of this intellectual investment, the
current interaction between evolutionary biologists or systematicists and 'their'
philosophers can be described without much exaggeration as symbiotic: both
parties truly benefit from their collaboration. One major drawback has been the
neglect, with few exceptions, of far 'hotter' areas of biological research and
1
See Darden & Maull (1977) and Darden (2006) for a specification of the notion of field and the roles theories
play in them, and, e.g., Bechtel & Richardson (1993, Chapter 10) and Dougherty & Brago-Neto (2006) for a
discussion of (and more references to the by now huge literature on) the interrelations between models and
theories of complex biological systems.
