Biological Theory

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 74–79 | Cite as

Selective Ignorance and Multiple Scales in Biology: Deciding on Criteria for Model Utility

  • Louis J. GrossEmail author
Long Article


Much of the scientific process involves “selective ignorance”: we include certain aspects of the systems we are considering and ignore others. This is inherent in the models that we utilize as proxies for biological systems. Our goal usually is to isolate components of these systems and consider them at only certain temporal and spatial scales. The scales and questions induce different metrics for what might be considered a “good” model. The study of mathematical and computational models is replete with differing views of the terms verification, validation, corroboration, and so on. I have often argued that criteria for determination of model utility should be established prior to model construction, but this is rarely done in the application of models in biology. The question I address is whether it is feasible to develop a general approach to model evaluation, that includes all the forms of models typically applied in biology—animal and cell/tissue culture ones as well as mathematical and computational ones.


Animal model Computational Evaluation Mathematical Model systems Patterns 



This work was supported by the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture through NSF Award #EF-0832858, with additional support from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.


  1. Bernasconil G, Antonovics J, Biere A, Charlesworth D, Delph LF, Filatov D, Giraud T, Hood ME, Marais GAB, McCauley D, Pannell JR, Shykoff JA, Vyskot B, Wolfe LM, Widmer A (2009) Silene as a model system in ecology and evolution. Heredity 103:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Meester L, Declerk S, Stoks R, Louette G, Van de Meutter F, De Bie T, Michels E, Brendonck L (2005) Ponds and pools as model systems in conservation biology, ecology and evolutionary biology. Aquat Conserv 15:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dugatkin LE (ed) (2001) Model systems in behavioral ecology: integrating conceptual, theoretical, and empirical approaches. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunham MJ (2007) Synthetic ecology: a model system for cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:1741–1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fuller MM, Gross LJ, Duke-Sylvester SM, Palmer M (2008) Testing the robustness of management decisions to uncertainty: everglades restoration scenarios. Ecol Appl 18:711–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, Jeltsch F, Mooij WM, Railsback SF, Thulke H–H, Weiner J, Wiegand T, DeAngelis DL (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis D, Polhill J, Giske J, Railsback S (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Model 221:2760–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gross LJ (2000) Use of computer systems and models. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 845–853Google Scholar
  9. Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 34:425–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jessup CM, Kassen R, Fordel SE, Kerr B, Buckling A, Rainey PB, Bohannan BJM (2004) Big questions, small worlds: microbial model systems in ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 19:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kramer EM (2009) Aquilegia: a new model for plant development, ecology and evolution. Annu Rev Plant Biol 60:261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lawton JH (1995) Ecological experiments with model systems. Science 269:328–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Luke NS, De Vito MJ, Shah I, El-Masri HA (2010) Development of a quantitative model of pregnane X receptor (PXR) mediated xenobiotic metabolizing enzyme induction. Bull Math Biol 72:1799–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mitchell-Olds T (2001) Arabidopsis thaliana and its wild relatives: a model system for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 16:693–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Research Council (1985) Models for biomedical research: a new perspective. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. National Research Council (1998) Biomedical models and resources: current needs and future opportunities. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council (2008) Models in environmental regulatory decision making. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. National Research Council (2011) Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals, 8th edn. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saikkonen K, Lehtonen P, Helander M, Koricheva J, Faeth SH (2006) Model systems in ecology: dissecting the endophyte–grass literature. Trends Plant Sci 11:1380–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sornette D, Davis AB, Ide K, Vixie KR, Pisarenko V, Kamm JR (2007) Algorithm for model validation: theory and applications. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 104:6562–6567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Srivastava DS, Kolasa J, Bengtsson J, Gonzalez A, Lawler SP, Miller TE, Munguia P, Romanuk T, Schneider DC, Trzcinski MK (2004) Are natural microcosms useful model systems for ecology? Trends Ecol Evol 19:379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vrijenhoek RC (1994) Unisexual fish: model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 25:71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wall RJ, Shani M (2008) Are animal models as good as we think? Theriogenology 69:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Mathematics, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological SynthesisUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations