I wonder, do readers know much about "Post Modern" biology? Radio Open Source contacted me about this topic...the thing is that I don't usually pay much attention to the "overthrow" of the "orthodox" doctrine because I don't think these "doctrines" are really adhered to in the same way that Marxism or Christianity are. Science is about change, falsification is a feature and not a bug! Myself, contravention of standard orthodoxy is cool, that means the low hanging fruit might still be around. Epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity seem to be well acknowledged phenomena which might be considered outside the conventional box if they weren't widely accepted. Since biology is the science of flexible and fuzzy generalizations I am not usually surprised by rivers which flow uphill...it seems much of the "debate" lay in the realm of semantics and rhetoric than science. To me a large fraction of "controversy" in natural science is captured by an anecdote that Martin Gradner recounted about the relationship between Sir Karl Popper and Rudolf Carnap's ideas in the philosophy of science, "the distance between him and Popper was not symmetrical. From Carnap to Popper it was small, but the other way around it appeared huge."
Here the abstract of the precipitating article:
Recent insights regarding stem cells, repression and de-repression of gene expression, and the application of Complexity Theory to cell and molecular biology require a re-evaluation of many long-held dogmas regarding the nature of the human body in health and disease. Greater than expected cell plasticity, trafficking of cells between organs, 'cellular uncertainty', stochasticity of cell origins and fates, and a reconsideration of Cell Doctrine itself all logically follow from these observations and conceptual approaches. In this paper, these themes will be considered and some implications for the investigative pathologist will be explored.Laboratory Investigation advance online publication, 13 February 2006; doi:10.1038/labinvest.3700401.
I doubt the distance between the author and I is really that large. Regular readers know I'm a big fan of R.A. Fisher, he of the gas law analogy, but I don't have big issues with the rise of evolutionary development biology, or the possibility that epigenetics might be a powerful force in biology. Life is a messy thing to create a science out of, and biology is an enormous territory. Some molecular biologists are probably tied to a tightly knitted heuristic around which their career has been based, but I haven't talked to many of these. I would bet that most "deterministic" quotes from the "orthodox" school imply a lack of consideration of context because the quotes are taken out of context, or their proper frame. People don't regularly expose their axioms in everyday conversation, and so confusion grows from the fertile soil of the perceived and assumed gaps between explicit assertions.
I do think we live in the era of Post Modern Biology, but I think we've always lived in the era of Post Modern Biology, insofar that science is implemented by humans, a species that is characterized by faction, self-interest and emotion. The filter through which we view the universe biases our perception of it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the universe dances to our beck and call. I suspect many controversies, whether between Selectionists vs. Neutralists or Bayesians vs. Frequentists, tell us more about the science of humanity than the science done by humans.
- Log in to post comments
stochasticity of cell origins and fates
To be fair, C. elegans cell fate development is fairly deterministic. Just from the abstract alone, the author could well be referring to the recent studies of stochastic variation in *isogenic*, *clonal* cell lines (e.g. the GFP work of Elowitz, Oudenaarden, and similar people).
The thing is that stochasticity at the cellular level need not imply or be directly connected to probabilistic behavior at the organismal level. Tumor suppressor genes are a canonical example; though recessive at the cellular level as they are unlikely to fail in any given cell...they are dominant at the organismal level as they *will* fail in one of the millions of cells (prompting tumor growth, bad stuff, etc.) In this case probablistic variation leads to a deterministic outcome in the limit of large numbers of cells.
Anyway, I'm not saying that the paper's author is sophisticated enough to appreciate such things rather than being a naive postmodernist; I am only saying that the discovery of significant variation at the individual, isogenic, clonal cell level is somewhat surprising. In vitro experiments for some cell-free systems do not always show high levels of noise; similarly not all cellular systems have the same levels (e.g. translational vs. transcriptional bursting). Localizing the source and cause of variation is important.
I'm not saying that the paper's author is sophisticated enough to appreciate such things rather than being a naive postmodernist;
i don't think there is naive postmodernism going on here...but i hear that the author tries to connect this to some buddhism somehow...so take that however you want.
i hear that the author tries to connect this to some buddhism somehow
Ahahahah. Ok, ok...might be crediting him with too much. Certainly the decision to call this "postmodern" rather than "integrative" or "systems" biology should have been a big red flag...
I suspect many controversies, whether between Selectionists vs. Neutralists or Bayesians vs. Frequentists, tell us more about the science of humanity than the science done by humans
Amen. The clash of egos in science is one of the most absurdly entertaining things about it (yet it's also a mechanism for getting science done). Recent example here.
The word "stochastic" in a technical discussion usually means the user is aware of and maybe invested in modern developments in statistics and probability. So it is, if not "post-modern" definitely post-Fisher!
For a good exposure to the issues I recommend Cosma Shalizi's blog "Three Toed Sloth", http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/. Although sadly his academic schedule is preventing him from posting now, the archives there contain a world of material, including his notes on the stochastic variables course he gave last semester. But also read his scathing comments on the attempts of ignoranti like physicists and Intelligient Designists to pursue complex subjects with simplistic tools.
The more we learn about genome/protein/whatever interactions, the less neat little equilibrium theorems are going to do it for us. Thermodynamics went through this parturition a generation ago on its way to its present far-from-equilibrium glory, and it's time for the life and social sciences to bite the bullet too.
jp, you didn't put in a link!
GC, interesting link. Thanks.
"Another proposition is that genetic noise can actually be used by an organism in deciding between alternative 'states,' such as a particular developmental pathway."
If something exists as part of the environment (external, internal, or genetic) then the chances are good that evolution has incorporated it somewhere. So noise likely does play a significant role in development.
Groups that attempt to monopolize the word "modern" to describe what they do find the description "post-modern" irritating. Never more so than in the dog-eat-dog status fight that is academic science (see Razib comments above) Molecular biologists have made such a power grab in recent times, and will be understandably touchy about any suggestion (with or without buddhism) that they are no longer quite...well...modern.
Nice to see this thread arrived at the same conclusion as the other.
ah crap, here's the link