Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 371–390 | Cite as

Explanatory pluralism in the medical sciences: Theory and practice

  • Leen De Vreese
  • Erik Weber
  • Jeroen Van Bouwel
Article

Abstract

Explanatory pluralism is the view that the best form and level of explanation depends on the kind of question one seeks to answer by the explanation, and that in order to answer all questions in the best way possible, we need more than one form and level of explanation. In the first part of this article, we argue that explanatory pluralism holds for the medical sciences, at least in theory. However, in the second part of the article we show that medical research and practice is actually not fully and truly explanatory pluralist yet. Although the literature demonstrates a slowly growing interest in non-reductive explanations in medicine, the dominant approach in medicine is still methodologically reductionist. This implies that non-reductive explanations often do not get the attention they deserve. We argue that the field of medicine could benefit greatly by reconsidering its reductive tendencies and becoming fully and truly explanatory pluralist. Nonetheless, trying to achieve the right balance in the search for and application of reductive and non-reductive explanations will in any case be a difficult exercise.

Keywords

Explanatory pluralism Reductionism Holism Medical sciences Geneticization Biochemicalization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Jeroen Van Bouwel is a post-doctoral fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). We thank Jan De Winter, Bert Leuridan, and the anonymous referees for their comments on earlier versions of this article. The Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) supported the research for this article through research project G.0651.07.

References

  1. 1.
    Marcum, James A. 2008. Reflections on humanizing biomedicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 51(3): 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marcum, James A. 2008. An introductory philosophy of medicine: Humanizing modern medicine. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park, Alice. 2008. Lung cancer genes identified. Time, April 2. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1727161,00.html. Accessed 1 Jul 2010.
  4. 4.
    Hung, Rayjean J., James D. McKay, Valerie Gaborieau, et al. 2008. A susceptibility locus for lung cancer maps to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit genes on 15q25. Nature 452: 633–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thorgeirsson, Thorgeir E., Frank Geller, Patrick Sulem, et al. 2008. A variant associated with nicotine dependence, lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease. Nature 452: 638–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amos, Christopher I., Xifeng Wu, Peter Broderick, et al. 2008. Genome-wide association scan of tag SNPs identifies a susceptibility locus for lung cancer at 15q25.1. Nature Genetics 40(5): 616–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Bouwel, Jeroen, and Erik Weber. 2008. A pragmatic defence of non-relativistic explanatory pluralism in history and social science. History and Theory 47: 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vanderbeeken, Robrecht, and Erik Weber. 2002. Dispositional explanations of behavior. Behavior and Philosophy 30: 43–59.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weber, Erik, and Robrecht Vanderbeeken. 2005. The functions of intentional explanations of actions. Behavior and Philosophy 33: 1–16.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber, Erik, and Jeroen Van Bouwel. 2002. Can we dispense with the structural explanation of social facts? Economics and Philosophy 18: 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Bouwel, Jeroen, and Erik Weber. 2002. Remote causes, bad explanations? Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 32(4): 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Bouwel, Jeroen. 2004. Explanatory pluralism in economics: Against the mainstream? Philosophical Explorations 7(3): 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pearce, Neil. 1996. Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology, and public health. American Journal of Public Health 86(5): 678–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell, Sandra, and Michael Dietrich. 2006. Integration without unification: An argument for pluralism in the biological sciences. The American Naturalist 168: S73–S79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell, Sandra. 2009. Unsimple truths: Science, complexity and policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Craver, Carl, and William Bechtel. 2007. Top-down causation without top-down causes. Biology and Philosophy 22: 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Craver, Carl. 2007. Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Susser, Mervyn, and Ezra Susser. 1996. Choosing a future for epidemiology: I. Eras and paradigms. American Journal of Public Health 86(5): 668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brandt, A.M., and M. Gardner. 2000. Antagonism and accommodation: Interpreting the relationship between public health and medicine in the United States during the 20th century. American Journal of Public Health 90(5): 707–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Borrell-Carrió, Francesc, Anthony L. Suchman, and Ronald M. Epstein. 2004. The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: Principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Annals of Family Medicine 2(6): 576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suls, Jerry, and Alex Rothman. 2004. Evolution of the biopsychosocial model: Prospects and challenges for health psychology. Health Psychology 23(2): 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Link, Bruce G., and Jo C. Phelan. 1995. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35(extra issue): 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cockerham, William C. 2007. Social causes of health and disease. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bendelow, Gillian. 2009. Health, emotion and the body. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Diez-Roux, Ana V. 2007. Integrating social and biologic factors in health research: A systems view. Annals of Epidemiology 17(7): 569–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shostak, Sara. 2003. Locating gene–environment interaction: At the intersections of genetics and public health. Social Science and Medicine 56: 2327–2342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strohman, Richard C. 2003. Genetic determinism as a failing paradigm in biology and medicine: Implications for health and wellness. Journal of Social Work Education 39(2): 169–191.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chaufan, Claudia. 2007. How much can a large population study on genes, environments, their interactions and common diseases contribute to the health of the American people? Social Science and Medicine 65: 1730–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ahn, Andrew C., Muneesh Tewari, Chi-Sang Poon, and Russell S. Phillips. 2006. The limits of reductionism in medicine: Could systems biology offer an alternative? PLoS Medicine 3(6): 709–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McMichael, Anthony J. 1995. The health of persons, populations, and planets: Epidemiology comes full circle. Epidemiology 6(6): 633–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Susser, Mervyn. 1996. Choosing a future for epidemiology: II. From black box to Chinese boxes and eco-epidemiology. American Journal of Public Health 86: 674–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    House, James S. 2002. Understanding social factors and inequalities in health: 20th century progress and 21st century prospects. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 43(2): 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pearce, Neil. 2007. The rise and rise of corporate epidemiology and the narrowing of epidemiology’s vision. International Journal of Epidemiology 36: 713–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fee, Elizabeth, and Nancy Krieger. 1993. Understanding AIDS: Historical interpretations and the limits of biomedical individualism. American Journal of Public Health 83(10): 1477–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith, Timothy W., and John M. Ruiz. 2002. Psychosocial influences on the development and course of coronary heart disease: Current status and implications for research and practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70(3): 548–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vinetz, Joseph M., Bruce A. Wilcox, Alonso Aguirre, et al. 2005. Beyond disciplinary boundaries: Leptospirosis as a model of incorporating transdisciplinary approaches to understand infectious disease emergence. Ecohealth 2: 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nassir Ghaemi, S. 2010. The rise and fall of the biopsychosocial model: Reconciling art & science in psychiatry. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hawthorne, Susan. 2007. ADHD drugs: Values that drive the debates and decisions. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10: 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nigg, Joel T. 2007. What causes ADHD? Understanding what goes wrong and why. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Searight, H. Rusell and A. Lesley McLaren. 1998. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: The medicalization of misbehavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings 5: 467–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cooper, Paul. 2001. Understanding AD/HD: A brief critical review of literature. Children and Society 15: 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Scheidt, Stephen. 2000. The current status of heart–mind relationships. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 48: 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Conrad, Peter. 1975. The discovery of hyperkinesis: Notes on the medicalization of deviant behavior. Social Problems 23(1): 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gannett, Lisa. 1999. What’s in a cause? The pragmatic dimensions of genetic explanations. Biology and Philosophy 14(3): 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eide, Brock L., and Fernette F. Eide. 2006. The mislabeled child. The New Atlantis 12: 46–59.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hedgecoe, Adam. 1998. Geneticization, medicalisation and polemics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 1: 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bancroft, John. 1974. Deviant sexual behaviour: Modification and assessment. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dekkers, Wim, and Marcel Olde Rikkert. 2006. What is a genetic cause? The example of Alzheimer’s disease. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9: 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Verlinsky, Yury, Svetlana Rechitsky, Oleg Verlinsky, Christina Masciangelo, Kevin Lederer, and Anver Kuliev. 2002. Preimplantation diagnosis for early-onset Alzheimer disease caused by V717L mutation. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 1018–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tuszynski, Mark H. 2007. Nerve growth factor gene delivery: Animal models to clinical trials. Developmental Neurobiology 67(9): 1204–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Waters, C. Kenneth. 2007. Molecular genetics. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/. Accessed 1 Jul 2010.
  53. 53.
    Waters, C. Kenneth. 2006. A pluralist interpretation of gene-centered biology. In Scientific pluralism vol. XIX of Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, ed. Stephen H. Kellert, Helen E. Longino, and C. Kenneth Waters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2000. Century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leen De Vreese
    • 1
  • Erik Weber
    • 1
  • Jeroen Van Bouwel
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations