Biological Theory

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 287–297 | Cite as

On the Different Ways of “Doing Theory” in Biology

  • Massimo PigliucciEmail author
Thematic Issue Article: The Meaning of “Theory” in Biology


“Theoretical biology” is a surprisingly heterogeneous field, partly because it encompasses “doing theory” across disciplines as diverse as molecular biology, systematics, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Moreover, it is done in a stunning variety of different ways, using anything from formal analytical models to computer simulations, from graphic representations to verbal arguments. In this essay I survey a number of aspects of what it means to do theoretical biology, and how they compare with the allegedly much more restricted sense of theory in the physical sciences. I also tackle a recent trend toward the presentation of all-encompassing theories in the biological sciences, from general theories of ecology to a recent attempt to provide a conceptual framework for the entire set of biological disciplines. Finally, I discuss the roles played by philosophers of science in criticizing and shaping biological theorizing.


Computer simulation Mathematical modeling Philosophy of science Theoretical biology Verbal arguments 


  1. Baker A (2008) Experimental mathematics. Erkenntnis 68:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatty J (1995) The evolutionary contingency thesis. In: Lennox JG, Wolters G (eds) Concepts, theories and rationality in the biological sciences. University of Konstanz Press, Konstanz; University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 45-81Google Scholar
  3. Burchfield JD (1974) Darwin and the dilemma of geological time. Isis 65:300–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll JW (2011) Laws of nature. In: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 22 June 2012
  5. Cartwright N (1983) How the laws of physics lie. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang H (2004) Complementary science: history and philosophy of science as a continuation of science by other means. In: Inventing temperature: measuring scientific progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 235-250Google Scholar
  7. Charlesworth B (1990) Optimization models, quantitative genetics, and mutation. Evolution 44:520–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowperthwaite MC, Meyer LA (2007) How mutational networks shape evolution: lessons from RNA models. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 38:203–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crombach A, Hogeweg P (2008) Evolution of evolvability in gene regulatory networks. PLoS Comput Biol 4:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crow JF (2008) Mid-century controversies in population genetics. Genetics 42:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Dennett DC (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobzhansky T (1964) Biology, molecular and organismic. Am Zool 4:443–452Google Scholar
  14. Dupré J (1983) The disunity of science. Mind 92:321–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eldredge N, Gould SJ (1977) Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115–151Google Scholar
  16. Eldredge N, Thompson JN, Brakefield PM, Gavrilets S, Jablonski D, Jackson JBC, Lenski RE, Lieberman BS, McPeek MA, Miller W III (2005) The dynamics of evolutionary stasis. Paleobiology 31:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elgin M (2003) Biology and a priori laws. Philos Sci 70:1380–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elgin M (2006) There may be strict empirical laws in biology, after all. Biol Philos 21:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Estes S, Arnold SJ (2007) Resolving the paradox of stasis: models with stabilizing selection explain evolutionary divergence on all timescales. Am Nat 169:227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falconer DS, Mackay T (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Benjamin Cummings, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher RA (1930/1999) The genetical theory of natural selection: a complete variorum edition. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Gavrilets S (1997) Evolution and speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 12:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gavrilets S (1999) A dynamical theory of speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. Am Nat 154:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giere RN (1999) Science without laws. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Gould SJ (2007) Contingency. In: Crowther PR, Briggs DEG (eds) Palaeobiology II. Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Hardy G (1908) Mendelian proportions in a mixed population. Science 28:49–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartl DL, Clark AG (2007) Principles of population genetics. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Hey J (1999) The neutralist, the fly and the selectionist. Trends Ecol Evol 14:35–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Honjo K, Furukubo-Tokunaga K (2009) Distinctive neuronal networks and biochemical pathways for appetitive and aversive memory in Drosophila larvae. J Neurosci 29:852–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaplan J (2000) The limits and lies of human genetic research: dangers for social policy. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaplan J (2009) The paradox of stasis and the nature of explanations in evolutionary biology. Philos Sci 76:797–808Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan J, Winther RG (2012) Prisoners of abstraction? The theory and measure of genetic variation, and the very concept of “race.” Biol Theory 7. doi: 10.1007/s13752-012-0048-0
  34. Kimura M (1985) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Kleffmann T, Russenberger D, von Zychlinski A, Christopher W, Sjolander K, Gruissem W, Baginsk S (2004) The Arabidopsis thaliana chloroplast proteome reveals pathway abundance and novel protein function. Curr Biol 14:354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koertge L (ed) (2000) A house built on sand: exposing postmodernist myths about science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lange M (2005) Ecological laws: what would they be and why would they matter? Oikos 110:394–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lockwood DR (2008) When logic fails ecology. Quart Rev Biol 83:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lynch M (2007) The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8597–8604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magnus PD (2011) Drakes, seadevils, and similarity fetishism. Biol Philos 26:857–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maynard-Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayr E, Provine W (eds) (1998) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Mikkelson GM (2003) Ecological kinds and ecological laws. Philos Sci 70:1390–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Newman SA, Müller GB (2000) Epigenetic mechanisms of character origination. J Exp Biol (Mol Devol Evol) 288:304–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nonacs P, Dill LM (1993) Is satisficing an alternative to optimal foraging theory? Oikos 67:371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O’Connor T (2006) Emergent properties. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 22 June 2012
  48. Pigliucci M (2006) Genetic variance covariance matrices: a critique of the evolutionary quantitative genetics research program. Biol Philos 21:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pigliucci M (2008a) The proper role of population genetics in modern evolutionary theory. Biol Theory 3:316–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pigliucci M (2008b) Is evolvability evolvable? Nature Rev Genet 9:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pigliucci M (2008c) The borderlands between science and philosophy an introduction. Quart Rev Biol 83:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pigliucci M, Kaplan J (2006) Making sense of evolution: the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) (2010) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  54. Scheiner SM (2010) Toward a conceptual framework for biology. Quart Rev Biol 85:293–318Google Scholar
  55. Scheiner SM, Willig MR (2008) A general theory of ecology. Theor Ecol 1:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Smolin L (2007) The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, BostonGoogle Scholar
  58. Sober E (1993) The nature of selection: evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  59. Stearns SC, Schmid-Hempel P (1987) Evolutionary insights should not be wasted. Oikos 49:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Uebel T (2011) Vienna circle. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 22 June 2012
  61. Van Fraassen BC (1989) Laws and symmetry. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weinberg W (1908) Über den Nachweis der Vererbung beim Menschen. Jahresh Ver vaterl Natkd Württ 64:368–382Google Scholar
  63. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999) The fourth dimension of life: fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science 284:1677–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wimsatt WC (1997) Aggregativity: reductive heuristics for finding emergence. Philos Sci 64:S372–S384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Woese CR (2004) A new biology for a new century. Microbiol Mol Biol R 68:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognitive Research 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy ProgramThe Graduate Center, City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations