Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 151, Issue 3, pp 361–376 | Cite as

Emergentism by default: A view from the bench

  • Ana M. SotoEmail author
  • Carlos Sonnenschein
Original Paper

Abstract

For the last 50 years the dominant stance in experimental biology has been reductionism in general, and genetic reductionism in particular. Philosophers were the first to realize that the belief that the Mendelian genes were reduced to DNA molecules was questionable. Soon, experimental data confirmed these misgivings. The optimism of molecular biologists, fueled by early success in tackling relatively simple problems has now been tempered by the difficulties encountered when applying the same simple ideas to complex problems. We analyze three examples taken from experimental data that illustrate the shortcomings of this sort of reductionism. In the first, alterations in the expression of a large number of genes coexist with normal phenotypes at supra-cellular levels of organization; in the second, the supposed intrinsic specificity of hormonal signals is negated; in the third, the notion that cancer is a cellular problem caused by mutated genes is challenged by data gathered both from the reductionist viewpoint and the alternative view proposing that carcinogenesis is development gone awry. As an alternative to reductionism, we propose that the organicist view is a good starting point from which to explore these phenomena. However, new theoretical concepts are needed to grapple with the apparent circular causality of complex biological phenomena.

Keywords

Cancer theories Carcinogenesis Cell proliferation Downward causation Organicism Reductionism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akagi T., Sasai K., Hanafusa H. (2003). Refractory nature of normal human diploid fibroblasts with respect to oncogene-mediated transformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 100, 13567–13572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberts B., Johnson A., Lewis J., Raff M., Roberts K., Walter P. (2001). Molecular biology of the cell (pp. 1313–1362). New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Alberts B., Johnson A., Lewis J.G., Raff M., Roberts K., Walter P. (2002). Molecular biology of the cell (pp. 1015). New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Bassett D.E., Jr., Eisen M.B., Boguski M.S. (1999). Gene expression informatics—It’s all in your mine. Nature Genetics, 21, 51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson K. (2001). T.H. Morgan’s resistance to the chromosome theory’. Nature Reviews: Genetics, 2, 469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bissell M.J. (1981). The differentiated state of normal and malignant cells or how to define a normal cell in culture. International Review of Cytology, 70, 27–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bissell M.J., Radisky D. (2001). Putting tumours in context. Nature Reviews: Cancer, 1, 46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brisken C., Socolovsky M., Lodish H.F., Weinberg R. (2002). The signaling domain of the receptor rescues prolactin receptor-mutant mammary epithelium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 99, 14241–14245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown P.O., Botstein D. (1999). Exploring the new world of the genome with DNA microarrays. Nature Genetics, 21, 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunge M. (2004). Emergence and convergence (pp. 13–14). Tortonto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark W.H. (1991). Tumour progression and the nature of cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 64, 631–644Google Scholar
  12. Cunha G.R., Bigsby R.M., Cooke P.S., Sugimura Y. (1985). Stromal-epithelial interactions in adult organs. Cell Differentiation, 17, 137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis H.J. (1965). Formal discussion of: Somatic mutations and carcinogenesis. Cancer Research, 25, 1305–1308Google Scholar
  14. Dawe C.J., Morgan W.D., Slatick M.S. (1966). Influence of epithelio-mesenchymal interactions of tumor induction by polyoma virus. International Journal of Cancer, 1, 419–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawkins R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. De Robertis E.A., Morita E.M., Cho K.W. Y. (1991). Gradient fields and homeobox genes. Development, 112, 669–678Google Scholar
  17. DiBerardino M.A., Orr N.H., McKinnell R.G. (1986). Feeding tadpoles cloned from Rana nuclei. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 83, 8231–8234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Downie S.A., Newmann S.A. (1994). Morphogenetic differences between fore and hind limb precartilage mesenchyme: relation to mechanisms of skeletal pattern formation. Developmental Biology, 162, 195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elenbaas B., Spirio L., Koerner F., Fleming M.D., Zimonjic D.B., Donaher J.L., Popescu N.C., Hahn W.C., Weinberg R.A. (2001). Human breast cancer cells generated by oncogenic transformation of primary mammary epithelial cells. Genes and Development, 15, 50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farge E. (2003). Mechanical induction of twist in the Drosophila foregut/stomodeal primordium. Current Biology, 13, 1365–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foulds L. (1969). Neoplastic development. New York, NY, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Fujii H., Cunha G.R., Norman J.T. (1982). The prostatic inducer. Journal of Urology, 128, 858–861Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert S.F. (1997). Developmental biology (pp. 594–596). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Gilbert S.F. (2003). Developmental biology (pp. 143). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Gilbert S.F. (2003b). The “Re-discovery”, of Morphogenic fields, http://www.devbio.com/ article.php?id=18&search=morphogenetic%20fieldGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilbert S.F., Sarkar S. (2000). Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics, 219, 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gould M.N. (1995). Rodent models for the study of etiology, prevention and treatment of breast cancer. Seminars in Cancer Biology, 6, 147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenspan R.J. (2001). The flexible genome. Nature Reviews: Genetics, 2, 383–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Griffiths P.E. Gray R.D. (2000). Darwinism and developmental systems. In S. Oyama P.E. Griffiths, R. D. Gray (Eds.), Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gullino P.M., Pettigrew H.M., Grantham F.H. (1975). N-nitrosomethylurea as mammary gland carcinogen in rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 54, 401–414Google Scholar
  31. Gurdon J.B. (1968). Transplanted nuclei and cell differentiation. Scientific American, 219, 24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guzman R.C., Osborn R.C., Swanson S.M., Sakthivel R., Hwang S.-I., Miyamoto S., Nandi S. (1992). Incidence of c-Ki-ras activation in N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-induced mammary carcinomas in pituitary-isografted mice. Cancer Research, 52, 5732–5737Google Scholar
  33. Hahn W.C., Weinberg R.A. (2002a). Mechanisms of disease: Rules for making human tumor cells. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1593–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hahn W.C., Weinberg R.A. (2002b), Modelling the molecular circuitry of cancer. Nature Reviews: Cancer, 2, 331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hull D. (1974). The philosophy of biological science. Englewood Clifts, NJ Prentice Hall pp. 8–44Google Scholar
  36. Humpherys D., Eggan K., Akutsu H., Friedman A., Hochedlinger K., Yanagimachi R., Lander E. S., Golub T.R., Jaenisch R. (2002). Abnormal gene expression in cloned mice derived from embryonic stem cell and cumulus cell nuclei. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 99, 12889–12894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Illmensee K., Mintz B. (1976). Totipotency and normal differentiation of single teratocarcinoma cell cloned by injection into blastocysts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 73, 549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacob F. (1982). The possible and the actual. Seattle, WA, University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kim J. (1999). Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kupiec J.J. (1997). A Darwinian theory for the origin of cellular differentiation. Molecular and General Genetics, 255, 201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayr E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge MA, Belknap Press, pp 1–146Google Scholar
  42. McCullough K., Coleman W., Ricketts S., Wilson J., Smith G., Grisham J.W. (1998). Plasticity of the neoplastic phenotype in vivo is regulated by epigenetic factors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 95, 15333–15338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKinnell R.G., Lust J.M., Sauerbier W., Rollins-Smith L.A., Williams J.W. 3., Williams C.S., Carlson D.L. (1993). Genomic plasticity of the Lucke renal carcinoma: a review. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 37, 213–219Google Scholar
  44. Morange M. (2003). History of cancer research. Encyclopedia of life sciences. London, Nature Publishing GroupCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moss L. (2003). What genes can’t do. Cambridge MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Needham J. (1931) Chemical embryology. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Needham J. (1936). New advances in chemistry and biology of organized growth. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Britian, 29, 1577–1626Google Scholar
  48. Orr J.W. (1955). The early effects of 9:10-dimethyl-1:2-benzanthracene on mouse skin, and their in relation to the mechanism of chemical carcinogenesis. British Journal of Cancer, 9, 623–632Google Scholar
  49. Orr J.W. (1958). The mechanism of chemical carcinogenesis. British Medical Bulletin, 14, 99–101Google Scholar
  50. Orr J.W., Spencer A.T. (1972) Transplantation studies of the role of the stroma in epidermal carcinogenesis. In: Tarin D. (eds), Tissue interactions in carcinogenesis. London, Academic Press, pp. 291–304Google Scholar
  51. Pierce G.B., Shikes R., Fink L.M. (1978). Cancer: A problem of developmental biology. Cliffs NJ, Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  52. Rao M.S., Reddy J.K. (1996) Cell and tissue adaptations to injury. In: Sirica A.E.(eds), Cellular and molecular pathogenesis hiladelphia, PA Lippincott-Raven, pp. 57–78Google Scholar
  53. Rideout W.M., Eggan K., Jaenisch R. (2001). Nuclear cloning and epigenetic reprogramming of the genome. Science, 293, 1093–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosenberg A. (1994). Instrumental biology, or, the disunity of science. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  55. Socolovsky M., Fallon A.E. J., Lodish H.F. (1998). The prolactin receptor rescues EpoR-/- progenitors and replaces EpoR in a synergistic interaction with c-kit. Blood, 92, 1491–1496Google Scholar
  56. Sonnenschein C., Soto A.M. (1999). The society of cells: Cancer and control of cell proliferation. New York, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  57. Sonnenschein C., Soto A.M. (2000). The somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis: why it should be dropped and replaced. Molecular Carcinogenesis. 29, 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Soto A.M., Sonnenschein C. (2004). The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm?. BioEssays, 26, 1097–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steinmuller D. (1971). A reinvestigation of epidermal transplantation during chemical carcinogenesis. Cancer Research, 31, 2080–2084Google Scholar
  60. Stewart T.A., Mintz B. (1981). Successful generations of mice produced from an established culture line of euploid teratocarcinoma cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 78, 6314–6318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Swann P.F. (1968). The rate of breakdown of methyl methanesulphonate, dimethyl sulphate and N-methyl-N-nitrosorurea in the rat. Biochemical Journal, 110, 49–52Google Scholar
  62. Tarin D. (1972). Tissue interaction in carcinogenesis. London, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  63. van Obberghen-Schilling E., Roche N.S., Flanders K.C., Sporn M.B., Roberts A. (1988). Transforming growth factor beta-1 positively regulates its own expression in normal and transformed cells. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 263, 7741–7746Google Scholar
  64. Waddington C.H. (1935). Cancer and the theory of organizers. Nature, 135, 606–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weaver V.M., Fischer A.H., Petersen O.W., Bissell M.J. (1996). The importance of the microenvironment in breast cancer progression:recapitulation of mammary tumorigenesis using a unique human mammary epithelial cell model and a three-dimensional culture assay. Biochemistry and Cell Biology, 74, 833–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weaver V.M., Lelievre S., Lakins J.N., Chrenek M.A., Jones J.C., Giancotti F., Werb Z., Bissell M.J.(2002). Beta4 integrin-dependent formation of polarized three-dimensional architecture confers resistance to apoptosis in normal and malignant mammary epithelium. Cancer Cell. 2, 205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weaver V.M., Petersen O.W., Wang F., Larabell C.A., Briand P., Damsky C., Bissell M.J. (1997). Reversion of the malignant phenotype of human breast cells in three-dimensional culture and in vivo integrin blocking antibody. Journal of Cell Biology, 137, 231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weinberg R.A. (1998). One renegade cell: How cancer begins. New York, Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  69. Weinstein I.B. (2002). Cancer. Addiction to oncogenes—the Achilles heal of cancer. Science, 297, 63–64Google Scholar
  70. Wilmut I., Schnieke A.E., McWhir J., Kind A.J., Campbell K.H. S. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385, 810–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anatomy and Cellular BiologyTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  2. 2.Centre CavaillèsEcole Normale SupérieureParisFrance

Personalised recommendations