Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 301–318 | Cite as

Unification and coherence as methodological objectives in the biological sciences

  • Richard M. Burian
Article

Abstract

In this paper I respond to Wim van der Steen's arguments against the supposed current overemphasis on norms ofcoherence andinterdisciplinary integration in biology. On the normative level, I argue that these aremiddle-range norms which, although they may be misapplied in short-term attempts to solve (temporarily?) intractable problems, play a guiding role in the longer-term treatment of biological problems. This stance is supported by a case study of apartial success story, the development of the one gene — one enzyme hypothesis. As that case shows, thegoal of coherent interdisciplinary integration not only provides guidance for research, but also provides the standard for recognizingfailed integrations of the sort that van der Steen criticizes.

Key words

Beadle coherence genetics historiography of science integration of disciplines methodology molecular biology reduction Tatum unity of science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Astbury, W.T.: 1938, ‘Some Recent Developments in the X-ray Study of Proteins and Related Structures’,Cold Spring Harbor Symposia in Quantitative Biology 6, 109–121.Google Scholar
  2. Avery, O.T., C.M. MacLeod, and M. McCarty: 1944, ‘Studies on the Chemical Nature of the Substance Inducing Transformation of Pneumococcal Types’,Journal of Experimental Medicine 79, 137–157.Google Scholar
  3. Beadle, G.W.: 1944–45, ‘The Genetic Control of Biochemical Reactions’,The Harvey Lectures 40, 179–194.Google Scholar
  4. Beadle, G.W.: 1945a, ‘Genetics and Metabolism inNeurospora’,Physiological Reviews 25, 643–663.Google Scholar
  5. Beadle, G.W.: 1945b, ‘Biochemical Genetics’,Chemical Reviews 37, 15–96.Google Scholar
  6. Beadle, G.W. and E.L. Tatum: 1941a, ‘Experimental Control of Development and Differentiation: Genetic Control of Developmental Reactions’,American Naturalist 75, 107–116.Google Scholar
  7. Beadle, G.W. and E.L. Tatum: 1941b, ‘Genetic Control of Biochemical Reactions inNeurospora’,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 27, 499–506.Google Scholar
  8. Burian, R.M.: in progress, ‘Underappreciated Pathways Toward Molecular Genetics’, for S. Sarkar, ed., a Volume on Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology.Google Scholar
  9. Burian, R.M., J. Gayon, and D. Zallen: 1988, ‘The Singular Fate of Genetics in the History of French Biology, 1900–1940’,Journal of the History of Biology 21, 357–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burian, R.M., J. Gayon, and D. Zallen: 1991, ‘Boris Ephrussi and the Synthesis of Genetics and Embryology’, in S. Gilbert (ed.),A Conceptual History of Embryology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 207–227.Google Scholar
  11. Darden, L.: 1991,Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Ephrussi, B. and G.W. Beadle: 1935, ‘La Transplantation des Disques imaginaux chez les Drosophiles’,Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences 201, 98–100.Google Scholar
  13. Gulick, A.: 1938, ‘What are the Genes? II. The Physico-chemical Picture; Conclusions’,Quarterly Review of Biology 13, 140–168.Google Scholar
  14. Gulick, A.: 1944, ‘The Chemical Formulation of Gene Structures and Gene Action’,Advances in Enzymology 4, 1–39.Google Scholar
  15. Kay, L.: 1992,The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Maynard Smith, J., R. Burian, S. Kauffman, P. Alberch, J. Campbell, B. Goodwin, R. Lande, D. Raup, and L. Wolpert: 1985, ‘Developmental Constraints and Evolution: A Perspective from the Mountain Lake Conference’,Quarterly Review of Biology 60, 265–287.Google Scholar
  17. Monod, J.: 1947, ‘The Phenomenon of Enzymatic Adaptation and its Bearings on Problems of Genetics and Cellular Differentiation’,Growth Symposium 11, 223–289.Google Scholar
  18. Spiegelman, S.: 1950, ‘Modern Aspects of Enzymatic Adaptation’, in J.B. Sumner, and K. Myrback (eds.),The Enzymes, Academic Press, New York, pp. 267–306.Google Scholar
  19. Tatum, E.L. and G.W. Beadle: 1942, ‘The Relation of Genetics to Growth-Factors and Hormones’,Growth 6, 27–35.Google Scholar
  20. Tatum, E.L. and G.W. Beadle: 1945, ‘Biochemical Genetics ofNeurospora’.Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 32, 125–129.Google Scholar
  21. Van der Steen, W.J.: 1990a, ‘Interdisciplinary Integration in Biology? An Overview’,Acta Biotheoretica 38, 23–36.Google Scholar
  22. Van der Steen, W.J.: 1990b, ‘Concepts in Biology: A Survey of Practical Methodological Principles’,Journal of Theoretical Biology 143, 383–403.Google Scholar
  23. Van der Steen, W.J. and P. Sloep: 1988, ‘Mere Generality is not Enough’,Biology and Philosophy 3, 217–219.Google Scholar
  24. Van der Steen, W.J. and P.J. Thung: 1988,Faces of Medicine: A Philosophical Study, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Wright, S.: 1941, ‘The Philosophy of the Gene’,Physiology Reviews 21, 487–527.Google Scholar
  26. Wright, S.: 1945, ‘Genes as Physiological Agents’,American Naturalist 79, 289–303.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard M. Burian
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Study of Science in SocietyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations