Synthese

, Volume 193, Issue 3, pp 873–907 | Cite as

Stem cells and systems models: clashing views of explanation

Article

Abstract

This paper examines a case of failed interdisciplinary collaboration, between experimental stem cell research and theoretical systems biology. Recently, two groups of theoretical biologists have proposed dynamical systems models as a basis for understanding stem cells and their distinctive capacities. Experimental stem cell biologists, whose work focuses on manipulation of concrete cells, tissues and organisms, have largely ignored these proposals. I argue that ‘failure to communicate’ in this case is rooted in divergent views of explanation: the theoretically-inclined modelers are committed to a version of the covering-law view, while experimental stem cell biologists aim at mechanistic explanations. I propose a way to reconcile these two explanatory approaches to cell development, and discuss the significance of this result for interdisciplinary collaboration in systems biology and beyond.

Keywords

Explanation Mechanisms Covering law Stem cells  Systems biology Interdisciplinarity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper has benefited from comments by William Bechtel, Sara Green, Matt Haber, Oleg Igoshin, Johannes Jaeger, Lucie Laplane, Miles MacLeod, Elijah Millgram, Miriam Thalos, and two anonymous reviewers for Synthese. Funding was provided by a Faculty Innovation Fellowship from the Rice University Division of Humanities, and a Scholar’s Award from the National Science Foundation (Award No. 1354515).

References

  1. Bechtel, W. (2011). Mechanism and biological explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78, 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamson, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F., Hofmeyr, J.-H., & Westerhoff, H. (Eds.). (2007). Systems biology: Philosophical foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Braillard, P.-A., & Malaterre, C. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Explanation in biology: An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Brigandt, I. (2013). Systems biology and the integration of mechanistic explanation and mathematical explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calvert, J., & Fujimura, J. H. (2011). Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darden, L. (2006). Reasoning in biological discoveries: Essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fagan, M. (2012a). Waddington redux: Models and explanation in stem cell and systems biology. Biology and Philosophy, 27, 179–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagan, M. (2012b). The joint account of mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 79, 448–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagan, M. (2013a). Philosophy of stem cell biology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fagan, M. (2013b). Philosophy of stem cell biology: An introduction. Philosophy Compass, 8, 1147–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Furusawa, C., & Kaneko, K. (1998). Emergence of rules in cell society: Differentiation, hierarchy, and stability. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 60, 659–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Furusawa, C., & Kaneko, K. (2001). Theory of robustness of irreversible differentiation in a stem cell system: Chaos hypothesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 209, 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Furusawa, C., & Kaneko, K. (2009). Chaotic expression dynamics implies pluripotency: When theory and experiment meet. Biology Direct, 4, 17. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-4-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Furusawa, C., & Kaneko, K. (2012). A dynamical-systems view of stem cell biology. Science, 338, 215–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green, S. (Ed.). (in press). Systems biology: 5 Questions. Copenhagen: Automatic Press/VIP.Google Scholar
  20. Green, S., Bechtel, W., & Levy, A. (2015). Design sans adaptation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Green, S., Fagan, M., & Jaeger, J. (2015). Explanatory integration challenges in evolutionary systems biology. Biological Theory, 9, 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gunawardena, J. (2010). Models in systems biology: The parameter problem and the meanings of robustness. In H. M. Lodhi & S. H. Muggleton (Eds.), Elements of computational systems biology (pp. 21–47). Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  23. Hackett, J. A., & Surani, M. A. (2014). Regulatory principles of pluripotency: From the ground state up. Cell Stem Cell, 15, 416–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang, S. (2009a). Reprogramming cell fates: Reconciling rarity with robustness. Bioessays, 31, 546–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang, S. (2009b). Non-genetic heterogeneity of cells in development: More than just noise. Development, 136, 3853–3862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang, S. (2011a). Understanding gene circuits at cell-fate branch points for rational cell reprogramming. Trends in Genetics, 27, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang, S. (2011b). Systems biology of stem cells: Three useful perspectives to help overcome the paradigm of linear pathways. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 366, 2247–2259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang, S., Ernberg, I., & Kauffman, S. (2009). Cancer attractors: A systems view of tumors from a gene network dynamics and developmental perspective. Seminars in Developmental Biology, 20, 869–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huang, S., Guo, Y. P., May, G., & Enver, T. (2007). Bifurcation dynamics of cell fate decision in bipotent progenitor cells. Developmental Biology, 305, 695–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaeger, J., & Crombach, A. (2012). Life’s attractors: Understanding developmental systems through reverse engineering and in silico evolution. In O. Soyer (Ed.), Evolutionary systems biology (pp. 93–119). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaeger, J., Irons, D., & Monk, N. (2012). The inheritance of process: A dynamical systems approach. Journal of Experimental Zoology Series B (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), 318B, 591–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaeger, J., & Sharpe, J. (2014). On the concept of mechanism in development. In A. Minelli & T. Pradeu (Eds.), Towards a theory of development (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaneko, K. (2011). Characterization of stem cells and cancer cells on the basis of gene expression profile stability, plasticity, and robustness. BioEssays, 33, 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaneko, K., Sato, K., Michiue, T., Okabayashi, K., Ohnuma, K., Danno, H., et al. (2008). Developmental potential for morphogenesis in vivo and in vitro. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), 310B, 492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaneko, K., & Yomo, T. (1999). Isologous diversification for robust development of cell society. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 99, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaplan, D., & Craver, C. (2011). The explanatory force of dynamical and mathematical models in neuroscience: A mechanistic perspective. Philosophy of Science, 78, 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kauffman, S. (1969). Metabolic stability and epigenetics in randomly constructed genetic nets. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 22, 437–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kauffman, S. (1971). Differentiation of malignant to benign cells. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 31, 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kauffman, S. (1973). Control circuits for determination and transdetermination. Science, 181, 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kitano, H. (2002). Looking beyond the details: A rise in system-oriented approaches in genetics and molecular biology. Current Genetics, 41, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48, 507–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klipp, E., Liebermeister, W., Wierling, C., Kowald, A., Lehrach, H., & Herwig, R. (2009). Systems biology: A textbook. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.Google Scholar
  45. Knuuttila, T., & Loettgers, A. (2013). Basic science through engineering? Synthetic modeling and the idea of biology-inspired engineering. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 158–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laplane, L. (forthcoming). Cellule souche cancéreuses: Ontologies et therapies. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense and Sorbonne Université. To be published (in translation) by Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2013). Abstraction and the organization of mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 80, 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013a). Coupling simulation and experiment: The bimodal strategy in integrative systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 572–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013b). Building simulations from the ground up: Modeling and theory in systems biology. Philosophy of Science, 80, 533–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2014). Strategies for coordinating experimentation and modeling in integrative systems biology. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), 322B, 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Melton, D. A., & Cowan, C. (2009). Stemness: Definitions, criteria, and standards. In R. Lanza et al. (Eds.). Essentials of stem biology (2nd ed., pp. xxii–xxix). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nagajima, A., & Kaneko, K. (2008). Regulative differentiation as bifurcation of interacting cell population. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 253, 779–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nobel Assembly. (October 2012). Karolinska Institute. Press release, 8.Google Scholar
  56. O’Malley, M., & Soyer, O. (2012). The roles of integration in molecular systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramalho-Santos, M., & Willenbring, H. (2007). On the origin of the term ‘stem cell’. Cell Stem Cell, 1, 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salmon, W. (1989). Four decades of scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  59. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Strogatz, S. H. (2000). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: With applications to physics, biology, chemistry and engineering. New York: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  61. Takahashi, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thomson, J., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S., Waknitz, M., Swiergel, J., Marshall, V., et al. (1998). Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science, 282, 1145–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vierbuchen, T., & Wernig, M. (2011). Direct lineage conversions: Unnatural but useful? Nature Biotechnology, 29, 892–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  65. Wang, J., Xu, L., Wang, E., & Huang, S. (2010). The potential landscape of genetic circuits imposes the arrow of time in stem cell differentiation. Biophysical Journal, 99, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Zednik, C. (2008). Dynamical models and mechanistic explanations. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1454–1459). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  68. Zednik, C. (2011). The nature of dynamical explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78, 238–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhou, J. X., & Huang, S. (2010). Understanding gene circuits at cell-fates branch points for rational cell reprogramming. Trends in Genetics, 27, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zipori, D. (2004). The nature of stem cells. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 873–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations