Advertisement

Extrapolating from Model Organisms in Pharmacology

  • Veli-Pekka ParkkinenEmail author
  • Jon Williamson
Chapter
  • 19 Downloads
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 338)

Abstract

In this chapter we explore the process of extrapolating causal claims from model organisms to humans in pharmacology. We describe and compare four strategies of extrapolation: enumerative induction, comparative process tracing, phylogenetic reasoning, and robustness reasoning. We argue that evidence of mechanisms plays a crucial role in several strategies for extrapolation and in the underlying logic of extrapolation: the more directly a strategy establishes mechanistic similarities between a model and humans, the more reliable the extrapolation. We present case studies from the research on atherosclerosis and the development of statins, that illustrate these strategies and the role of mechanistic evidence in extrapolation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out as a part of the projects Grading evidence of mechanisms in physics and biology, supported by the Leverhulme Trust, and Evaluating evidence in medicine, supported by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. We are grateful to the referees and editors for helpful comments.

References

  1. Anitschkow, N. (1913). Über die veränderungen der kanichnenaorta bei experimenteller Cholesterinsteatose. Beitrage zur pathologischen anatomie und zur allgemeinen pathologie, 56, 379–404.Google Scholar
  2. Attarwala, H. (2010). TGN1412: From discovery to disaster. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 2(3), 332–336. ISSN: 0975–1483. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1483.66810. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975148310230248
  3. Bruger, M., & Oppenheim, E. (1951). Experimental and human atherosclerosis: Possible relationship and present status. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 27(9), 536.Google Scholar
  4. Campaner, R. (2011). Understanding mechanisms in the health sciences. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 32, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campaner, R., & Galavotti, M. C. (2012). Evidence and the assessment of causal relations in the health sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 26(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, B. (2011). Causality in medicine with particular reference to the viral causation of cancers. Ph.D. diss., Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, B., Gillies, D., Illari, P., Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2013). The evidence that evidence-based medicine omits. Preventative Medicine, 57(6), 745–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.10.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, B., Gillies, D., Illari, P., Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2014). Mechanisms and the evidence hierarchy. Topoi, 33(2), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-013-9220-9. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11245-013-9220-9
  9. Claveau, F. (2012). The Russo-Williamson theses in the social sciences: Causal inference drawing on two types of evidence. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(4), 806–813. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.shpsc.2012.05.004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984861200060X.
  10. Darby, G., & Williamson, J. (2011). Imaging technology and the philosophy of causality. Philosophy & Technology, 24(2), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-010-0010-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dragulinescu, S. (2012). On ‘Stabilising’ medical mechanisms, truth-makers and epistemic causality: A critique to Williamson and Russo’s approach. Synthese, 187(2), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0011-9. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-011-0011-9
  12. Eastwood, D., Findlay, L., Poole, S., Bird, C., Wadhwa, M., Moore, M., Burns, C., Thorpe, R., & Stebbings, R. (2010). Monoclonal antibody TGN1412 trial failure explained by species differences in CD28 expression on CD4+ effector memory T-cells. British Journal of Pharmacology, 161(3), 512–526. ISSN: 1476–5381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00922.x.
  13. Endo, A., Yoshio, T., Masao, K., & Kazuhiko, T. (1979). Effects of ML-236B on cholesterol metabolism in mice and rats: Lack of hypocholesterolemic activity in normal animals. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Lipids and Lipid Metabolism, 575(2), 266–276. ISSN: 0005-2760. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2760(79)90028-6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005276079900286
  14. Endo, A. (2010). A historical perspective on the discovery of statins. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series, B, 86, 484–493.Google Scholar
  15. Fiorentino, A. R., & Dammann, O. (2015). Evidence, illness, and causation: An epidemiological perspective on the Russo-Williamson thesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 54, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillies, D. A. (2011). The Russo-Williamson thesis and the question of whether smoking causes heart disease. In P. M. Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the sciences (pp. 110–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guala, F. (2010). Extrapolation, analogy, and comparative process tracing. Philosophy of Science, 77, 1070–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howick, J., Glasziou, P., & Aronson, J. K. (2013). Can understanding mechanisms solve the problem of extrapolating from study to target populations (the problem of ‘external validity’)? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 106(3), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076813476498. eprint: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/106/3/81.full.pdf+html. http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/106/3/81.short
  19. Howick, J. (2011a). Exposing the vanities—and a qualified defence—of mechanistic evidence in clinical decision-making. Proceedings of the Biennial PSA 2010. Philosophy of Science, 78(5), 926–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howick, J. (2011b). The philosophy of evidence-based medicine. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howick, J., Glasziou, P., & Aronson, J. K. (2013). Problems with using mechanisms to solve the problem of extrapolation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 34(4), 275–291. ISSN: 1573-1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-013-9266-0
  22. Illari, P. M. (2011). Disambiguating the Russo-Williamson thesis. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenter, M., & Cohen, A. F. (2006). Establishing risk of human experimentation with drugs: Lessons from TGN1412 [in en]. The Lancet, 368(9544), 1387–1391. ISSN: 01406736. Accessed 30 Aug 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69562-7. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673606695627
  24. Levy, A., & Currie, A. (2015). Model organisms are not (theoretical) models. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66(2), 327–348.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axt055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Longworth, F. (2006). Causation, pluralism and responsibility. Philosophica, 77, 45–68.Google Scholar
  26. Love, A. C. (2007). Functional homology and homology of function: Biological concepts and philosophical consequences. Biology & Philosophy, 22(5), 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maciejak, A., Leszczynska, A., Warchol, I., Gora, M., Kaminska, J., Plochocka, D., Wysocka-Kapcinska, M., et al. (2013). The effects of statins on the mevalonic acid pathway in recombinant yeast strains expressing human HMG-CoA reductase. BMC Biotechnology, 13(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-13-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parkkinen, V.-P. (2016). Robustness and evidence of mechanisms in early experimental atherosclerosis research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 60, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parkkinen, V.-P., Wallmann, C., Wilde, M., Clarke, B., Illari, P., Kelly, M. P., Norell, C., Russo, F., Shaw, B., Williamson, J. (2018). Evaluating evidence of mechanisms in medicine: Principles and procedures. Springer Briefs. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2007). Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 21(2), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2011a). Epistemic causality and evidence-based medicine. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 33(4), 563–582.Google Scholar
  32. Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2011b). Generic versus single-case causality: The case of autopsy. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-010-0012-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schupbach, J. N. (2016). Robustness analysis as explanatory reasoning. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axw008. http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/05/04/bjps.axw008.abstract
  34. Steel, D. (2008). Across the boundaries: Extrapolation in biology and social science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Steinberg, D. (2007). The cholesterol wars: The skeptics vs. the preponderance of evidence (1st ed.). San Diego: Academic. ISBN: 97801237397970123739799.Google Scholar
  36. Weber, E. (2007). Social mechanisms, causal inference, and the policy relevance of social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 30(3), 348–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weber, E. (2009). How probabilistic causation can account for the use of mechanistic evidence. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wimsatt, W. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. World Health Organization. (2014). Ethical considerations for use of unregistered interventions for Ebola viral disease. Report of an advisory panel to WHO. Technical report. World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Centre for ReasoningUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations