Approximations, idealizations and ‘experiments’ at the physics–biology interface

This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part C, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, 2011-06, Vol.42 (2), p.145-154
1. Verfasser: Rowbottom, Darrell P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 154
container_issue 2
container_start_page 145
container_title Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part C, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences
container_volume 42
creator Rowbottom, Darrell P.
description This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too coarse-grained, approximate and/or idealized to serve a useful scientific purpose to the latter; and (2) the latter have a rather narrower view of what counts as an experiment, particularly when it comes to computer simulations, than the former. It argues that these findings are related; that computer simulations are considered to be undeserving of experimental status, by molecular biologists, precisely because of the idealizations and approximations that they involve. The complexity of biological systems is a key factor. The paper concludes by critically examining whether the new research programme of ‘systems biology’ offers a genuine alternative to the modelling strategies used by physicists. It argues that it does not.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_862006972</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1369848610001147</els_id><sourcerecordid>862006972</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-15e41d09afbd1cc39ab247f4313c1c9b26e06a1d1144df52bc3622a21c2646583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kL9OwzAQxi0EoqXwBEgoGwspPjtxk4GhqvgnVWIBVsuxL9RVmoQ4RS1T34EFXq9PgksLI9PdffruTt-PkFOgfaAgLqd9N6md7jO6UaBPGeyRLiSDNGRRmu77nos0TKJEdMiRc1NKKXBOD0mHgRdFzLrkeVjXTbWwM9XaqnQXgTWoCvu-HQNVmmC9-sRFjY2dYdm69eorUG3QTjCoJ0tntVc-MlsV1csysGWLTa40HpODXBUOT3a1R55urh9Hd-H44fZ-NByHmsdJG0KMERiaqjwzoDVPVcaiQR5x4Bp0mjGBVCgwAFFk8phlmgvGFAPNRCTihPfI-fauD_E6R9fKmXUai0KVWM2dTASjVKQD5p1869RN5VyDuax9ItUsJVC54Smn8oen3PCUANLz9Ftnu_vzbIbmb-cXoDdcbQ3oU75ZbKTTFkuNxjaoW2kq---Db2g1i3Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>862006972</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Approximations, idealizations and ‘experiments’ at the physics–biology interface</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Rowbottom, Darrell P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rowbottom, Darrell P.</creatorcontrib><description>This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too coarse-grained, approximate and/or idealized to serve a useful scientific purpose to the latter; and (2) the latter have a rather narrower view of what counts as an experiment, particularly when it comes to computer simulations, than the former. It argues that these findings are related; that computer simulations are considered to be undeserving of experimental status, by molecular biologists, precisely because of the idealizations and approximations that they involve. The complexity of biological systems is a key factor. The paper concludes by critically examining whether the new research programme of ‘systems biology’ offers a genuine alternative to the modelling strategies used by physicists. It argues that it does not.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1369-8486</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2499</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21486652</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Complexity ; Computer Simulation ; Condensed matter physics ; Models, Biological ; Molecular biology ; Molecular Biology - methods ; Physics - methods ; Physics–biology interface ; Research Design ; Simulations ; Systems biology ; Systems Biology - methods</subject><ispartof>Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part C, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, 2011-06, Vol.42 (2), p.145-154</ispartof><rights>2010 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-15e41d09afbd1cc39ab247f4313c1c9b26e06a1d1144df52bc3622a21c2646583</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-15e41d09afbd1cc39ab247f4313c1c9b26e06a1d1144df52bc3622a21c2646583</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848610001147$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21486652$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rowbottom, Darrell P.</creatorcontrib><title>Approximations, idealizations and ‘experiments’ at the physics–biology interface</title><title>Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part C, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences</title><addtitle>Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci</addtitle><description>This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too coarse-grained, approximate and/or idealized to serve a useful scientific purpose to the latter; and (2) the latter have a rather narrower view of what counts as an experiment, particularly when it comes to computer simulations, than the former. It argues that these findings are related; that computer simulations are considered to be undeserving of experimental status, by molecular biologists, precisely because of the idealizations and approximations that they involve. The complexity of biological systems is a key factor. The paper concludes by critically examining whether the new research programme of ‘systems biology’ offers a genuine alternative to the modelling strategies used by physicists. It argues that it does not.</description><subject>Complexity</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Condensed matter physics</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Molecular biology</subject><subject>Molecular Biology - methods</subject><subject>Physics - methods</subject><subject>Physics–biology interface</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Simulations</subject><subject>Systems biology</subject><subject>Systems Biology - methods</subject><issn>1369-8486</issn><issn>1879-2499</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kL9OwzAQxi0EoqXwBEgoGwspPjtxk4GhqvgnVWIBVsuxL9RVmoQ4RS1T34EFXq9PgksLI9PdffruTt-PkFOgfaAgLqd9N6md7jO6UaBPGeyRLiSDNGRRmu77nos0TKJEdMiRc1NKKXBOD0mHgRdFzLrkeVjXTbWwM9XaqnQXgTWoCvu-HQNVmmC9-sRFjY2dYdm69eorUG3QTjCoJ0tntVc-MlsV1csysGWLTa40HpODXBUOT3a1R55urh9Hd-H44fZ-NByHmsdJG0KMERiaqjwzoDVPVcaiQR5x4Bp0mjGBVCgwAFFk8phlmgvGFAPNRCTihPfI-fauD_E6R9fKmXUai0KVWM2dTASjVKQD5p1869RN5VyDuax9ItUsJVC54Smn8oen3PCUANLz9Ftnu_vzbIbmb-cXoDdcbQ3oU75ZbKTTFkuNxjaoW2kq---Db2g1i3Q</recordid><startdate>201106</startdate><enddate>201106</enddate><creator>Rowbottom, Darrell P.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201106</creationdate><title>Approximations, idealizations and ‘experiments’ at the physics–biology interface</title><author>Rowbottom, Darrell P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-15e41d09afbd1cc39ab247f4313c1c9b26e06a1d1144df52bc3622a21c2646583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Complexity</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Condensed matter physics</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Molecular biology</topic><topic>Molecular Biology - methods</topic><topic>Physics - methods</topic><topic>Physics–biology interface</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Simulations</topic><topic>Systems biology</topic><topic>Systems Biology - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rowbottom, Darrell P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part C, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rowbottom, Darrell P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Approximations, idealizations and ‘experiments’ at the physics–biology interface</atitle><jtitle>Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part C, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences</jtitle><addtitle>Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci</addtitle><date>2011-06</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>145</spage><epage>154</epage><pages>145-154</pages><issn>1369-8486</issn><eissn>1879-2499</eissn><abstract>This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too coarse-grained, approximate and/or idealized to serve a useful scientific purpose to the latter; and (2) the latter have a rather narrower view of what counts as an experiment, particularly when it comes to computer simulations, than the former. It argues that these findings are related; that computer simulations are considered to be undeserving of experimental status, by molecular biologists, precisely because of the idealizations and approximations that they involve. The complexity of biological systems is a key factor. The paper concludes by critically examining whether the new research programme of ‘systems biology’ offers a genuine alternative to the modelling strategies used by physicists. It argues that it does not.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>21486652</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1369-8486
ispartof Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part C, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, 2011-06, Vol.42 (2), p.145-154
issn 1369-8486
1879-2499
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_862006972
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Complexity
Computer Simulation
Condensed matter physics
Models, Biological
Molecular biology
Molecular Biology - methods
Physics - methods
Physics–biology interface
Research Design
Simulations
Systems biology
Systems Biology - methods
title Approximations, idealizations and ‘experiments’ at the physics–biology interface
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T22%3A50%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Approximations,%20idealizations%20and%20%E2%80%98experiments%E2%80%99%20at%20the%20physics%E2%80%93biology%20interface&rft.jtitle=Studies%20in%20history%20and%20philosophy%20of%20science.%20Part%20C,%20Studies%20in%20history%20and%20philosophy%20of%20biological%20and%20biomedical%20sciences&rft.au=Rowbottom,%20Darrell%20P.&rft.date=2011-06&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=145&rft.epage=154&rft.pages=145-154&rft.issn=1369-8486&rft.eissn=1879-2499&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E862006972%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=862006972&rft_id=info:pmid/21486652&rft_els_id=S1369848610001147&rfr_iscdi=true