Abstract
Due to the variation, contingency and complexity of living systems, biology is often taken to be a science without fundamental theories, laws or general principles. I revisit this question in light of the quest for design principles in systems biology and show that different views can be reconciled if we distinguish between different types of generality. The philosophical literature has primarily focused on (the lack of) generality of specific models or explanations, or on the heuristic role of abstraction. This paper takes a different approach in emphasizing a theory-constituting role of general principles. Design principles signify general dependency-relations between structures and functions, given a set of formally defined constraints. I contend that design principles increase our understanding of living systems by relating specific models to general types. The categorization of types is based on a delineation of the scope of biological possibilities, which serves to identify and define the generic features of classes of systems. To characterize the basis for general principles through generic abstraction and reasoning about possibility spaces, I coin the term constraint-based generality. I show that constraint-based generality is distinct from other types of generality in biology, and argue that general principles play a unifying role that does not entail theory reduction.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection and principles of divergence may be an exception, since modeling of evolution resembles the attempt to treat biological processes as influenced by deeper laws (Depew and Weber 1995). Yet, there are major disagreements about the specific content and implications of the theory, e.g. the extent to which natural selection determines the direction of evolution, the dynamics and unit of natural selection, and the heuristic and explanatory value of adaptationism (Amundson 1994; Green 2014).
The quest for design principles does not assume an ‘intelligent’ designer, nor does it necessarily entail adaptationism (see Green et al. 2015b).
Developmental constraints refer to features that set the boundaries for possible processes in embryonic stages. For instance, developmental constraints are taken to explain the lack of variation in the number of cervical vertebrae or five-digit limbs among vertebrate species because the embryonic stages in the production of these cannot be altered without affecting other developmental processes. For an analysis of the historical role of developmental constraints in biology, see (Brigandt 2015).
The model only includes internal inputs and is therefore deterministic with a finite number of network states.
For a discussion of adaptationism in this context, see (Green 2014).
The different labels for general principles in the table highlight theoretical differences between the approaches but the notions of design and organizing principles are often used interchangeably and have overlapping historical precursors (Green and Wolkenhauer 2013).
In E. coli, chemotaxis involves mediation of a kinase-phosphorylation signal transduction pathway from methyl-accepting transmembrane receptors to six Che proteins that interact with a flagella motor that can change the tumbling frequency according to input signals. Adaptation to concentration of repellants and attractors is causally instantiated by ligand binding, methylation and demethylation of receptors.
These assumptions are: (1) CheB only demethylates active receptors, (2) the kinetic rate constants of CheR and CheB are independent of the methylation state of the receptor complex, (3) the activity of unmethylated receptors are negligible, and (4) the concentration of bound CheR is independent of ligand-level.
For practical implications of this principle for designing synthetic homeostatic circuits in synthetic biology, see also (Ang et al. 2010).
Whereas Gould initially believed that laws of evolution could be based on regular adaptive processes, he came to realize that generality in evolution was most likely to be found in evolutionary processes that are insensitive to specific adaptations and variations (Haufe 2015).
Huang (2004) refers to these different focal points as Type I and Type II explanations in evolutionary biology (the latter investigating what I call constraint-based generality).
In the network model based on empirical data, they find that many of the motifs are closely overlapping and “more than 30 % of the FFL circuits are formed by 5 pairs of regulators with significant homology at the protein level” (Cordero and Hogeweg 2006, 1934). This finding speaks counter to the assumptions that the motifs result from selection of individual functional units (see also Green 2014).
This role is akin to answering Batterman’s (2002) type II questions, described through case studies in physics. But whereas Batterman emphasizes how what he calls minimal models explain mainly by showing why details don’t matter, I emphasize the generic features that the functional equivalence class (or universality class) have in common. Thus, the accounts differ with respect to what is taken to be the salient feature of the answer to the why-question.
I thank Mads Goddiksen for suggesting a comparison between the transfer of higher-order formalisms in systems biology and exemplars. One disadvantage of seeing design principles as examplars is, however, that it is not a part of Kuhn’s account to make sense of the redefinition of exemplars through interdisciplinary ‘bootstrapping’ (Nickles 1990, 24).
References
Alon U (2007) An introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton
Alon U, Surette MG, Barkai N, Leibler S (1999) Robustness in bacterial chemotaxis. Nature 397:168–171
Amundson R (1994) Two concepts of constraint: adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philos Sci 61:556–578
Ang J, Bagh S, Ingalls BP, McMillen DR (2010) Considerations for using integral feedback control to construct a perfectly adapting synthetic gene network. J Theor Biol 266:723–738
Barkai N, Leibler S (1997) Robustness in simple biochemical networks. Nature 387:913–917
Batterman RW (2002) The devil in the details: asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Beatty J (1995) The evolutionary contingency thesis. In: Wolters G, Lennox J, McLaughlin P (eds) Concepts, theories and rationality in the biological sciences. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 45–81
Bertalanffy Lv (1967) Robots, men and minds. George Braziller, New York
Braillard P (2010) Systems biology and the mechanistic framework. Hist Philos Life Sci 32:43–62
Briat C, Gupta A, Khammash M (2014) Integral feedback generically achieves perfect adaptation in stochastic biochemical networks. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6064v3.pdf
Brigandt I (2015) From developmental constraint to evolvability: how concepts figure in explanation and disciplinary identity. In: Love A (ed) Conceptual change in biology. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 305–325
Burian R, Richardson RC, Van der Steen W (1996) Against generality: meaning in genetics and philosophy. Stud Hist Philos Sci 27:1–29
Collins JP, Gilbert S, Laubichler MD, Müller G (2007) Modeling in EvoDevo: how to integrate development, evolution, and ecology. In: Laubichler MD, Müller G (eds) Modelling biology: structures, behaviors, evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 355–378
Cordero OX, Hogeweg P (2006) Feed-forward loop circuits as a side effect of genome evolution. Mol Biol Evol 23:1931–1936
Csete ME, Doyle JC (2002) Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science 295:1664–1669
Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray, London
Dawkins R (1978) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dennett DC (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life. Penguin, London
Depew DJ, Weber BH (1995) Darwinism evolving: Systems dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge
Dupré J (2007) Is biology reducible to the laws of physics? Am Sci 95:274–276
Friedman M (1974) Explanation and scientific understanding. J Philos 71:5–19
Goodwin B (1994) How the Leopard changed its spots. The evolution of complexity. Phoenix, London
Goodwin B (2009) Beyond the Darwinian paradigm: understanding biological forms. In: Ruse M, Travis J (eds) Evolution: the first four billion years. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 299–312
Gould SJ (1977/1996) Size and shape. In: McGarr P, Rose S (eds) The richness of life. The essential Stephen Jay Gould. Vintage Books, London, pp 317–323
Gould SJ (1982) Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. Science 216:380–387
Gould SJ (1983/2006) How the zebra gets its stripes. In: McGarr P, Rose S (eds) The richness of life. The essential Stephen Jay Gould. Vintage Books, London, pp 325–332
Green S (2014) A philosophical evaluation of adaptationism as a heuristic strategy. Acta Biotheor 64:479–498
Green S, Wolkenhauer O (2013) Tracing organizing principles: learning from the history of systems biology. Hist Philos Life Sci 35:555–578
Green S, Fagan M, Jaeger J (2015a) Explanatory integration challenges in evolutionary systems biology. Biol Theory 10:18–35
Green S, Levy A, Bechtel W (2015b) Design sans adaptation. Eur J Philos Sci 5:15–29
Griesemer J (2012) Formalization and the meaning of “Theory” in the inexact biological sciences. Biol Theory 7:298–310
Hamilton A (2007) Laws of biology, laws of nature: problems and (dis) solutions. Philos Compass 2:592–610
Haufe C (2015) Gould’s laws. Philos Sci 82:1–20
Hofmeyr J (2007) The biochemical factory that autonomously fabricates itself: a systems biological view of the living cell. In: Boogerd FC, Bruggeman F, Hofmeyr J-H, Westerhoff HV (eds) Systems biology: philosophical foundations. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 217–242
Hogeweg P (2012) Toward a theory of multilevel evolution: long-term information integration shapes the mutational landscape and enhances evolvability. In: Soyer O (ed) Evolutionary systems biology. Springer, London, pp 195–223
Huang S (2004) Back to the biology in systems biology: What can we learn from biomolecular networks? Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 2:279–297
Huneman P (2010) Topological explanations and robustness in biological sciences. Synthese 117:213–245
Jaeger J, Crombach A (2012) Life’s attractors. Understanding developmental systems through reverse engineering and in silico evolution. In: Soyer O (ed) Evolutionary systems biology, advances in experimental medicine and biology. Springer, London, pp 93–119
Jakobsen L (2010) Vespertilionid bats control the width of their biosonar sound beam dynamically during prey pursuit. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:13930–13935
Jones N (2014) Bowtie structures, pathway diagrams, and topological explanation. Erkenntnis 79:1135–1155
Kauffman S (1969) Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. J Theor Biol 22:437–467
Kauffman S (1993) Origins or order in evolution: self-organisation and selection. Oxford University Press, New York
Kitano H (2007) Towards a theory of biological robustness. Mol Syst Biol 3:137
Kitcher P (1989) Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In: Kitcher P, Salmon WC (eds) Scientific explanation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 410–505
Klir GJ (1991) Facets of systems science. Plenum Press, New York
Koonin EV (2011) Are there laws of genome evolution? PLoS Comput Biol 7:e1002173
Kuhn TS (1962/1996) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Letelier JC, Cárdenas M, Cornish-Bowden A (2011) From L'Homme Machine to metabolic closure: steps towards understanding life. J Theor Biol 286:100–113
Ma W, Trusina A, El-Samad H, Lim WA, Tang C (2009) Defining network topologies that can achieve biochemical adaptation. Cell 138:760–773
Mayr E (2005) What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mesarović M, Takahara Y (1970) Theory of hierarchical, multilevel systems. Academic Press, New York
Mesarović M, Takahara Y (1975) General Systems Theory: Mathematical Foundations. Academic Press, New York
Mesarovic M, Sreenath SN, Keene JD (2004) Search for organizing principles: understanding in systems biology. Syst Biol 1:19–27
Müller G, Newman SA (2003) Origination of organismal form: beyond the gene in developmental and evolutionary biology. MIT Press, Massachusetts
Nersessian NJ (2008) Representation and reasoning: analogy, imagery, thought experiment. In: Nersessian NJ (ed) Creating Scientific Concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 131–181
Nickles T (1990) Discovery logics. Philosophica 45:7–32
O’Malley M, Dupré J (2005) Fundamental issues in systems biology. BioEssays 27:1270–1276
Polanyi M (1968) Life’s irreducible structure. Science 160:1308–1312
Rashevsky N (1961) Mathematical principles in biology and their applications. Springfield, LA
Rosen R (1967) Optimality principles in biology. Butterworths, London
Rosen R (1991) Life itself: a comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life. Columbia University Press, New York
Savageau M (1989) Are there rules governing patterns of gene regulation? In: Goodwin B, Saunders P (eds) Theoretical biology, epigenetic and evolutionary order from complex systems. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 42–66
Shanks N (2001) Modeling biological systems: the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction. Found Chem 3:33–53
Shinar G, Feinberg M (2010) Structural sources of robustness in biochemical reaction networks. Science 327:1389–1391
Shinar G, Feinberg M (2011) Design principles for robust biochemical reaction networks: what works, what cannot work, and what might almost work. Math Biosci 231:39–48
Smart J (1963) Philosophy and scientific realism. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Sontag ED (2003) Adaptation and regulation with signal detection implies internal model. Syst Control Lett 50:119–126
Soyer O ed (2012) Evolutionary systems biology. Springer, London
Stelling J, Sauer U, Szallasi Z, Doyle FJ III, Doyle J (2004) Robustness of cellular functions. Cell 118:675–685
Sterelny K (2007) Dawkins vs. Gould, survival of the fittest. Icon Books Ltd., Cambridge
Tyson JJ, Chen KC, Novak B (2003) Sniffers, buzzers, toggles and blinkers: dynamics of regulatory and signaling pathways in the cell. Curr Opin Cell Biol 15:221–231
Velazquez JL (2009) Finding simplicity in complexity: general principles of biological and nonbiological organization. J Biol Phys 35:209–221
von Bertalanffy L (1969) General systems theory. Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller, New York
Wiener N (1948) Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine. MIT Press, Paris
Wilkins JF, Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Adaptationism and the adaptive landscape. Biol Philos 24:199–214
Winther RG (2009) Schaffner’s model of theory reduction: critique and reconstruction. Philos Sci 76:119–142
Wolkenhauer O, Hofmeyr J (2007) An abstract cell model that describes the self-organization of cell function in living systems. J Theor Biol 246:461–476
Wolkenhauer O, Shibata DK, Mesarović M (2011) A stem cell niche dominance theorem. Syst Biol 5:1–16
Wolkenhauer O, Shibata D, Mesarović M (2012) The role of theorem proving in systems biology. J Theor Biol 7:57–61
Wouters A (2007) Design explanation: determining the constraints on what can be alive. Erkenntnis 67:65–80
Yi TM, Huang Y, Simon MI, Doyle J (2000) Robust perfect adaptation in bacterial chemotaxis through integral feedback control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:4649–4653
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank William Bechtel, Maria Serban, Nicholaos Jones and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments to earlier versions of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Green, S. Revisiting generality in biology: systems biology and the quest for design principles. Biol Philos 30, 629–652 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9496-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9496-9