Advertisement

European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 493–506 | Cite as

Synthetic biology and the search for alternative genetic systems: Taking how-possibly models seriously

  • Rami KoskinenEmail author
Original Paper in Philosophy of Biology

Abstract

Many scientific models in biology are how-possibly models. These models depict things as they could be, but do not necessarily capture actual states of affairs in the biological world. In contemporary philosophy of science, it is customary to treat how-possibly models as second-rate theoretical tools. Although possibly important in the early stages of theorizing, they do not constitute the main aim of modelling, namely, to discover the actual mechanism responsible for the phenomenon under study. In the paper it is argued that this prevailing picture does not do justice to the synthetic strategy that is commonly used in biological engineering. In synthetic biology, how-possibly models are not simply speculations or eliminable scaffolds towards a single how-actually model, but indispensable design hypotheses for a field whose ultimate goal is to build novel biological systems. The paper explicates this by providing an example from the study of alternative genetic systems by synthetic biologist Steven Benner and his group. The case will also highlight how the method of synthesis, even when it fails, provides an effective way to limit the space of possible models for biological systems.

Keywords

How-possibly models Synthetic biology Alternative genetic systems Possibility Actuality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Tero Ijäs, Tarja Knuuttila, Kristin Kokkov, and Jani Raerinne for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

Academy of Finland project number 272604: Biological Knowledge through Modeling and Engineering.

References

  1. Bayer, T. S. (2010). Using synthetic biology to understand the evolution of gene expression. Current Biology, 20, R772–R779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatty, J. (1995). The evolutionary contingency thesis. In G. Wolters, J.G. Lennox, & P. McLaughlin (Eds.), Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences. The second Pittsburgh-Konstanz colloquium in the philosophy of science (pp. 45–81). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (2010). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benner, S. A., Yang, Z., & Chen, F. (2011). Synthetic biology, tinkering biology, and artificial biology. What are we learning? Comptes Rendus Chimie, 14, 372–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benner, S. A., Karalkar, N. B., Hoshika, S., Laos, R., Shaw, R. W., Matsuura, M., et al. (2016). Alternative Watson–Crick synthetic genetic systems. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a023770.
  6. Cameron, D. E., Bashor, C. J., & Collins, J. J. (2014). A brief history of synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 12, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craver, C. F., & Darden, L. (2013). In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  11. Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  12. Dray, W. (1957). Laws and explanation in history. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Elowitz, M. B., & Lim, W. A. (2010). Build life to understand it. Nature, 468, 889–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Endy, D. (2005). Foundation for engineering biology. Nature, 438, 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forber, P. (2010). Confirmation and explaining how-possible. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 41, 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glennan, S. (2010). Mechanisms, causes, and the layered model of the world. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXXXI, 362–381.Google Scholar
  17. Green, S. (2015). Revisiting generality in biology: Systems biology and the quest for design principles. Biology and Philosophy, 30, 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2013). Appraising models nonrepresentationally. Philosophy of Science, 80, 850–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knuuttila, T., & Loettgers, A. (2013). Synthetic modeling and mechanistic account: Material recombination and beyond. Philosophy of Science, 80, 874–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kwok, R. (2012). DNA’s new alphabet. Nature, 491, 516–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malyshev, A., Dhami, K., Lavergne, T., Chen, T., Dai, N., Foster, J. M., Corrêa Jr., I. R., & Romesberg, F. L. (2014). A semi-synthetic organism with an expanded genetic alphabet. Nature, 509, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marlière, P., Patrouix, J., Döring, V., Herdewijn, P., Tricot, S., Cruveiller, S., Bouzon, M., & Mutzel, R. (2011). Chemical evolution of a bacterial genome. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 50, 7109–7114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morange, M. (2009). Synthetic biology: A bridge between functional and evolutionary biology. Biological Theory, 4, 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raerinne, J. (2015). Evolutionary contingency, stability, and biological laws. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 46, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Resnik, D. B. (1991). How-possibly explanations in biology. Acta Biotheoretica, 39, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reydon, T. A. C. (2012). How-possibly explanations as genuine explanations and helpful heuristics: A comment on Forber. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenberg, A. (2006). Darwinian reductionism: Or, how to stop worrying and love molecular biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruiz-Mirazo, K., & Moreno, A. (2013). Synthetic biology: Challenging life in order to grasp, use, or extend it. Biological Theory, 8, 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt, M. (2010). Xenobiology: A new form of life as the ultimate biosafety tool. BioEssays, 32, 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schrödinger, E. (1944). What is life? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sprinzak, D., & Elowitz, M. B. (2005). Reconstruction of genetic circuits. Nature, 438, 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sterelny, K, and P.E. Griffiths. (1999). Sex and death: An introduction to philosophy of biology. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Switzer, C., Moroney, S. E., & Benner, S. A. (1989). Enzymatic incorporation of a new base pair into DNA and RNA. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 111, 8322–8323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Szathmáry, E. (2003). Why are there four letters in the genetic alphabet? Nature Reviews Genetics, 4, 995–1001.Google Scholar
  35. Thyer, R., & Ellefson, J. (2014). New letters for life’s alphabet. Nature, 509, 291–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner, A. (2005). Robustness and evolvability in living systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Weiskopf, D. A. (2011). The functional unity of special science kinds. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62, 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political and Economic Studies/PhilosophyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations