Entangled Life pp 153-166 | Cite as

Models in Context: Biological and Epistemological Niches

Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 4)

Abstract

A model organism’s value depends on its biological and epistemological contexts. The biological context of a model species comprises all aspects of its environment in the research setting that may influence its biological characteristics. In contrast, the epistemological context is not a matter of the organism’s surroundings, but rather of what question it is supposed to help answer, and the assumptions about its “representativeness” that warrant broader application of results from a unique model. The biological context for model organisms in research is highly controlled and standardized. This strategy has often been productive; however, it risks eliminating essential environmental information and biological mechanisms, including organism-environment interactions that help shape phenotypes. Considering biological context helps us avoid experimental designs that simplify potentially important dimensions out of existence. Clarifying the epistemological context, from background assumptions to the ultimate goal of the research, lets us assess how the research approach we choose—such as employing a particular model—may constrain the range or utility of possible answers. Looking at models in context can enrich understanding of both the history and the practice of biology: how models are selected and evolve to fit questions, and how they in turn influence the direction of future work.

Keywords

Biological Context Niche Construction Predator Stress Embryonic Induction Epistemological Role 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Gillian Barker, Eric Desjardins, and Trevor Pearce for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Abzhanov, Arhat, Cassandra G. Extavour, Andrew Groover, Scott A. Hodges, Hopi E. Hoekstra, Elena M. Kramer, and Antonia Monteiro. 2008. Are we there yet? Tracking the development of new model systems. Trends in Genetics 24: 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, Douglas. 1979. The Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  3. Albertson, R. Craig, William Cresko, H. William Detrich, and John H. Postlethwait. 2008. Evolutionary mutant models for human disease. Trends in Genetics 25: 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, Mark A., and Edward H. Leiter. 1999. The NOD mouse model of type 1 diabetes: As good as it gets? Nature Medicine 5: 601–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckers, Johannes, Wolfgang Wurst, and Martin Hrabé de Angelis. 2009. Towards better mouse models: Enhanced genotypes, systemic phenotyping and envirotype modelling. Nature Reviews Genetics 10: 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedell, Mary A., Nancy A. Jenkins, and Neal G. Copeland. 1997. Mouse models of human disease. Part I: Techniques and resources for genetic analysis in mice. Genes & Development 11: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolker, Jessica A. 2009. Exemplary and surrogate models: Two modes of representation in biology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52: 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burian, Richard M. 1992. How the choice of experimental organism matters: Biological practices and discipline boundaries. Synthese 92: 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burian, Richard M. 1993. How the choice of experimental organism matters: Epistemological reflections on an aspect of biological practice. Journal of the History of Biology 26: 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calvi, L.M., G.B. Adams, K.W. Weibrecht, J.M. Weber, D.P. Olson, M.C. Knight, R.P. Martin, E. Schipani, P. Divieti, F. Bringhurst, L. Milner, H. Kronenberg, and D. Scadden. 2003. Osteoblastic cells regulate the haematopoietic stem cell niche. Nature 425: 841–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chung, Young, Colin E. Bishop, Nathan R. Treff, Stephen J. Walker, Vladislav M. Sandler, Sandy Becker, Irina Klimanskaya, et al. 2009. Reprogramming of human somatic cells using human and animal oocytes. Cloning and Stem Cells 11: 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clair, La., J. James, John A. Bantle, and James Dumont. 1998. Photoproducts and metabolites of a common insect growth regulator produce developmental deformities in Xenopus. Environmental Science and Technology 32: 1453–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, Adele E. 1992. The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, Francis S. 2011. Reengineering translational science: The time is right. Science Translational Medicine 3(90): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson, Carlos, and Roland A. Knapp. 2007. Multiple stressors and amphibian declines: Dual impacts of pesticides and fish on yellow-legged frogs. Ecological Applications 17: 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, Mark M. 2008. A prescription for human immunology. Immunity 29: 835–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engler, Adam J., Shamik Sen, H. Lee Sweeney, and Dennis E. Discher. 2006. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126: 677–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epstein, Michelle M. 2004. Do mouse models of allergic asthma mimic clinical disease? International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 133: 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erickson, Robert P. 1996. Mouse models of human genetic disease: Which mouse is more like a man? BioEssays 18: 993–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, Scott. 2001. Ecological developmental biology: Developmental biology meets the real world. Developmental Biology 233: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, Scott. 2003. Developmental biology, 7th ed. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, Scott, and Jessica A. Bolker. 2003. Ecological developmental biology: Preface to the symposium. Evolution and Development 5: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert, Scott, and David Epel. 2009. Ecological developmental biology. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  24. Ginsburg, Benson. 1966. All mice are not created equal: Recent findings on genes and behavior. The Social Service Review 40: 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ginsburg, Benson E. 1992. Muroid roots of behavior genetic research: A retrospective. In Techniques for the genetic analysis of brain and behavior: Focus on the mouse, ed. D. Goldowitz, D. Wahlsten, and R.E. Wimer, 3–16. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Haag, Eric S. 2009. Caenorhabditis nematodes as a model for the adaptive evolution of germ cells. Current Topics in Developmental Biology 86: 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hackney, Jason A., Pierre Charbord, Brian P. Brunk, Christian J. Stoeckert, Ihor R. Lemischka, and Kateri A. Moore. 2002. A molecular profile of a hematopoietic stem cell niche. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 13061–13066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hardouin, Sylvie, and Andras Nagy. 2000. Mouse models for human disease. Clinical Genetics 57: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hesse, Mary B. 1963. Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hurst, Jane L., and Rebecca S. West. 2010. Taming anxiety in laboratory mice. Nature Methods 7: 825–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenner, Ronald A., and Matthew A. Wills. 2007. The choice of model organisms in evo-devo. Nature Reviews Genetics 8: 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keller, Ray, Lance A. Davidson, and David R. Shook. 2003. How we are shaped: The biomechanics of gastrulation. Differentiation 71: 171–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kilian, Kristopher A., Branimir Bugarija, Bruce T. Lahn, and Milan Mrksich. 2010. Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 4872–4877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohler, Robert E. 1994. Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Laland, Kevin N., F. John Odling‐Smee, and Scott F. Gilbert. 2008. EvoDevo and niche construction: Building bridges. Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part B, Molecular and Developmental Evolution 310: 549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lederman, Muriel, and Richard M. Burian. 1993. Introduction. Journal of the History of Biology 26: 235–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leonelli, Sabina, and Rachel A. Ankeny. 2012. Re-thinking organisms: The impact of databases on model organism biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewontin, Richard. 1983. The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Scientia 118: 65–95.Google Scholar
  39. Maher, Brendan. 2009. Evolution: Biology’s next top model? Nature 458: 695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mestas, Javier, and Christopher Hughes. 2004. Of mice and not men: Differences between mouse and human immunology. Journal of Immunology 172: 2731–2738.Google Scholar
  41. Moore, Kateri A., and Ihor R. Lemischka. 2006. Stem cells and their niches. Science 311: 1880–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nials, Anthony T., and Sorif Uddin. 2009. Mouse models of allergic asthma: Acute and chronic allergen challenge. Disease Models & Mechanisms 1: 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Odling-Smee, F. John, Kevin N. Laland, and Marcus W. Feldman. 2003. Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Perera, Frederica, and Julie Herbstman. 2011. Prenatal environmental exposures, epigenetics, and disease. Reproductive Toxicology 31: 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Powell, Kendall. 2005. Stem-cell niches: It’s the ecology, stupid! Nature 435: 268–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Preuss, Todd M. 2000. Taking the measure of diversity: Comparative alternatives to the model-animal paradigm in cortical neuroscience. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 55: 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rader, Karen. 2004. Making mice: Standardizing animals for American biomedical research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Robert, Jason Scott. 2004. Model systems in stem cell biology. BioEssays 26: 1005–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson, Roy. 1965. Genetics of the Norway rat. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Russell, William, and Rex Leonard Burch. 1959. The principles of humane experimental technique. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  51. Scadden, David T. 2006. The stem-cell niche as an entity of action. Nature 441: 1075–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schlichting, Carl D., and Massimo Pigliucci. 1998. Phenotypic evolution: A reaction norm perspective. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  53. Sonnenschein, Carlos, and Ana Soto. 1999. The society of cells: Control of cell proliferation and cancer. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Soto, Ana, and Carlos Sonnenschein. 2011. The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory. BioEssays 33: 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spradling, Allan, Daniela Drummond-Barbosa, and Toshie Kai. 2001. Stem cells find their niche. Nature 414: 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thyagarajan, Tamizchelvi, Satish Totey, Mary Jo S. Danton, and Ashok B. Kulkarni. 2003. Genetically altered mouse models: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine 14: 154–174.Google Scholar
  57. Tollrian, Ralph, and C. Drew Harvell (eds.). 1999. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Travis, Joseph. 2006. Is it what we know or who we know? Choice of organism and robustness of inference in ecology and evolutionary biology. American Naturalist 167: 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vanin, Stefano, Supriya Bhutani, Stefano Montelli, Pamela Menegazzi, Edward W. Green, Mirko Pegoraro, Federica Sandrelli, Rodolfo Costa, and Charalambos P. Kyriacou. 2012. Unexpected features of Drosophila circadian behavioural rhythms under natural conditions. Nature 484: 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Von Herrath, Matthias G., and Gerald T. Nepom. 2005. Lost in translation: Barriers to implementing clinical immunotherapeutics for autoimmunity. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 202: 1159–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. West-Eberhard, Mary Jane. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wilson, Paul A., and Ali Hemmati-Brivanlou. 1997. Vertebrate neural induction: Inducers, inhibitors, and a new synthesis. Neuron 18: 699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Witkowsky, Jan. 1985. The hunting of the organizer: An episode in biochemical embryology. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 10: 378–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xie, Ting, and Alan Spradling. 2000. A niche maintaining germ line stem cells in the Drosophila ovary. Science 290: 328–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang, Jiwang, Chao Niu, Ling Ye, Haiyang Huang, Xi He, Wei-Gang Tong, Jason Ross, et al. 2003. Identification of the haematopoietic stem cell niche and control of the niche size. Nature 425: 836–840.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations