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...
Gespeichert in:
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: | |
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 |