Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 General Introduction
- PART I METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
- 2 How the Choice of Experimental Organism Matters: Epistemological Reflections on an Aspect of Biological Practice
- 3 Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in the Biological Sciences
- PART II EVOLUTION
- PART III GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
- PART IV DEVELOPMENT
- Index
- References
2 - How the Choice of Experimental Organism Matters: Epistemological Reflections on an Aspect of Biological Practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 General Introduction
- PART I METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
- 2 How the Choice of Experimental Organism Matters: Epistemological Reflections on an Aspect of Biological Practice
- 3 Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in the Biological Sciences
- PART II EVOLUTION
- PART III GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
- PART IV DEVELOPMENT
- Index
- References
Summary
Unless we recognize our innate biases in animal model choice, we limit our potential as experimenters. Two biases seem common from my observations. First is the anthropomorphism that we all seem to get from the monkeys in zoos and circuses, coming as it does long before we aspire to be scientists. Second is for the animal or animals with which we worked during our early days in our fields. Both of these are easy to understand and forgivable. What has neither of these saving attributes is our unwillingness to consider the entire biologic kingdom as a source of possible models of one or another human functions, normal or diseased.
The value of an organism as an experimental tool, or in field studies, depends not only on various features of the organism but also on the problems to be addressed and the available experimental and field techniques. Indeed, even when some organism is “the” right one for a theoretical job, its rightness is temporary and more or less local or regional. It depends not only on the job but also on the techniques employed and the social or institutional support system for doing that job.
Most biologists realize that the choice of organism can greatly affect the outcome of well-defined experiments and can thus have a major impact on the valuation of biological theories. Anyone who does not appreciate the point need only think of well-known cases in which the choice of organism led investigators down a garden path.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Epistemology of Development, Evolution, and Genetics , pp. 11 - 28Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2004
References
Allen, G. E. 1986. “T. H. Morgan and the split between embryology and genetics, 1910–1935.” In A History of Embryology, eds. T. J. Horder, J. A. Witkowski, and C. C. Wylie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–46
Beatty, J. 1995. “The evolutionary contingency thesis.” In Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences: The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, eds. G. Wolters and J. Lennox, in collaboration with P. McLaughlin. Konstanz and Pittsburgh: Universitätsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press, 45–81
1887. “Die Bildung der Richtungskorper bei Ascaris megalocephala und Ascaris lumbricoides.” Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 21: 423–515Google Scholar
1902. “Die Befruchtung und Teilung des Eies von Ascaris megalocephala.” Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 22: 685–882Google Scholar
1910. “Über die Teilung centrifugierter Eier von Ascaris megalocephala.” Wilhelm Roux Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen XXX: 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1952. “Transplantation of living nuclei from blastula cells into enucleated frogs eggs.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 38: 455–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1992. “How the choice of experimental organism matters: biological practices and discipline boundaries.” Synthese 92: 151–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1991. “Form and order in evolutionary biology: Stuart Kauffman's transformation of theoretical biology.” PSA 1990 2: 267–87Google Scholar
, , and . 1988. “The singular fate of genetics in the history of French biology, 1900–1940.” Journal of the History of Biology 21: 357–402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burian, R. M., J. Gayon, and D. Zallen. 1991. “Boris Ephrussi and the synthesis of genetics and embryology.” In A Conceptual History of Embryology, ed. S. Gilbert. New York: Plenum, 207–27
Carrier, M. 1995. “Evolutionary change and lawlikeness: Beatty on biological generalizations.” In Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences: The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, eds. G. Wolters and J. Lennox, in collaboration with P. McLaughlin. Konstanz and Pittsburgh: Universitätsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press, 83–97
Clarke, A. E. 1991. “Embryology and the rise of American reproductive sciences, circa 1910–1940.” In The Expansion of American Biology, eds. K. R. Benson, J. Maienschein, and R. Rainger. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 107–32
1993. “The Wistar rat as a right choice: Establishing mammalian standards and the ideal of a standardized mammal.” Journal of the History of Biology 26: 329–49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1936. “Some aspects of the cytogenetics of Oenothera.” Botanical Review 2: 316–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Models for Biomedical Research, B. o. B. B., Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (USA) 1985. Models for Biomedical Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
, and . 1931. “Genetic and cytological studies on Oenothera. III. The translocation interpretation.” Zeitschrift für induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre 59: 395–419Google Scholar
1978. “The embryological origins of the gene theory.” Journal of the History of Biology 11: 307–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, S. F. 1988a. “Cellular politics: Ernest Everett Just, Richard B. Goldschmidt, and the attempt to reconcile embryology and genetics.” In The American Development of Biology, eds. R. Rainger, K. R. Benson, and J. Maienschein. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 311–46
Gilbert, S. F. 1988b. Developmental Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
1986. “Evolution and the triumph of homology, or why history matters.” American Scientist 74: 60–9Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Norton
1993. “The old martyr of science: The frog in experimental physiology.” Journal of the History of Biology 26: 311–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and . 1982. “The impact of modern genetics on evolutionary theory.” Perspectives on Evolution164–89Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. 1993. Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press
1993. “Drosophila: A life in the laboratory.” Journal of the History of Biology 26: 281–310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohler, R. E. 1994. Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Lawrence, P. A. 1992. The Making of a Fly: The Genetics of Animal Design. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications
, and . 1993. “OVATOOMB: Other viruses and the origins of molecular biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 26: 239–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and , eds. 1993. “The right organism for the job”. Journal of the History of Biology Vol. 26 (2): 235–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1974. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press
1951. “The CO2 sensitivity problem in Drosophila.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 15: 99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1970. “Drosophila viruses and their role as evolutionary factors.” Evolutionary Biology 4: 185–209Google Scholar
, and . 1933. “Une expérience de sélection naturelle: Courbe d'élimination du gène ‘bar’ dans une population de Drosophiles en équilibre.” Comptes rendus de la Société de Biologie 114: 1049–51Google Scholar
, and . 1937. “L'élimination des formes mutantes dans les populations de Drosophiles.” Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris 205: 1099–101Google Scholar
, and . 1949. “Les problèmes de la production du bactériophage par les souches lysogènes. La lyse spontanée du Bacillus megatherium.” Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris 229: 605–7Google Scholar
, and . 1950. “Recherches sur un Bacillus megatherium lysogène.” Annales de l'Institut Pasteur 78: 711–39Google Scholar
McNabb, F. M. A. 1989. “Development and aging of the thyroid in homeotherms.” In Development, Maturation, and Senescence of Neuroendocrine Systems: A Comparative Approach, eds. M. P. Schreibman and C. G. Scanes. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 333–51
, and . 1993. “Thyroid hormone effects on growth, development, and metabolism.” The Endocrinology of Growth, Development, and Metabolism in Vertebrates, 393–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitman, G., and A. Fausto-Sterling. 1992. “Whatever happened to Planaria? C. M. Child and the physiology of inheritance.” In The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in 20th-Century Life Sciences, eds. A. E. Clarke and J. H. Fujimura. Princeton: Princeton University Press
1952. “Breeding Systems for Detection of Sex-linked Lethals in Successive Generations.” Drosophila Information Service 26: 113–14Google Scholar
1953a. “Autosomal Mutation Studies by Means of Crisscrossed Lethals and Balanced Male-Steriles.” Drosophila Information Service 27: 104–5Google Scholar
1953b. “Autosomal Nondisjunction Associated with the Rotund Translocation.” Drosophila Information Service 27: 106–7Google Scholar
Prichard, R. W. 1976. “Animal models in human medicine.” In Animal Models of Thrombosis and Hemorrhagic Disease. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 169–72
Provine, W. B. 1981. “Origins of the genetics of natural populations series.” In Dobzhansky's Genetics of Natural Populations, I–XⅬIII, eds. R. C. Lewontin, J. A. Moore, W. B. Provine, and B. Wallace. New York: Columbia University Press, 1–83
Sapp, J. 1987. Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press
Schaffner, K. F. 1995. “Comments on Beatty.” In Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences: The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, eds. G. Wolters and J. Lennox, in collaboration with P. McLaughlin. Konstanz and Pittsburgh: Universitätsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press
Stern, C., and E. R. Sherwood, eds. 1966. The Origin of Genetics, a Mendel Source Book. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.
1971. “On the choice of material for genetical studies.” Stadler Genetics Symposia 1: 51–7Google Scholar
1993. “How bacteriophage came to be used by the phage group.” Journal of the History of Biology 26, 2: 255–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1993. “The ‘light’ organism for the job: Green algae and photosynthesis research.” Journal of the History of Biology 26: 269–79CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and . 1992. “On the beginnings of somatic cell hybridization: Boris Ephrussi and chromosome transplantation.” Genetics 132: 1–8Google ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by