分子生物学中的还原论之争:Max delbr的互补方法

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Vito Balorda
{"title":"分子生物学中的还原论之争:Max delbr<e:1>的互补方法","authors":"Vito Balorda","doi":"10.4467/2543702xshs.23.016.17707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I address Max Delbrück’s conceptual and experimental importance for molecular biology (henceforth MB) origins. In particular, his complementarity approach and its anti-reductive implications on the (epistemic) reductionism debate in MB. Regarding Delbrück’s conceptual and experimental importance, I examine his influence on the development of MB by exploring a shift of his interests from physics to biology. Particularly, I outline his central role in “The Phage Group”, the informal group of scientists examining the origin of hereditary life using bacteriophages as their experimental model of choice. Delbrück and “The Phage Group” greatly influenced the development of MB, which culminated with the shared 1969 Nobel Prize for the discoveries regarding replication mechanism and genetic structure of viruses. Moreover, I examine Delbrück’s complementarity approach towards biological explanations. The complementarity in biology assumes that “biological phenomena might require the employment of descriptions that are mutually exclusive yet jointly necessary for understanding life processes” (McKaughan 2011, p. 11). I explore Delbrück’s complementarity approach, in particular the debate between the reductive and anti-reductive interpretations of it. I argue for the latter interpretation by suggesting that Delbrück advanced an anti-reductive view towards biological explanations by advocating for independent status of explanations of various biological disciplines. Furthermore, I address the complementarity approach in the light of the anti-reductive interpretation in the recent developments in MB, particularly, the potentiality of finding the complementarity approach in systems biology, epigenetics, and boundary selection.","PeriodicalId":36875,"journal":{"name":"Studia Historiae Scientiarum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reductionism Debate in Molecular Biology: Max Delbrück’s Complementarity Approach\",\"authors\":\"Vito Balorda\",\"doi\":\"10.4467/2543702xshs.23.016.17707\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I address Max Delbrück’s conceptual and experimental importance for molecular biology (henceforth MB) origins. In particular, his complementarity approach and its anti-reductive implications on the (epistemic) reductionism debate in MB. Regarding Delbrück’s conceptual and experimental importance, I examine his influence on the development of MB by exploring a shift of his interests from physics to biology. Particularly, I outline his central role in “The Phage Group”, the informal group of scientists examining the origin of hereditary life using bacteriophages as their experimental model of choice. Delbrück and “The Phage Group” greatly influenced the development of MB, which culminated with the shared 1969 Nobel Prize for the discoveries regarding replication mechanism and genetic structure of viruses. Moreover, I examine Delbrück’s complementarity approach towards biological explanations. The complementarity in biology assumes that “biological phenomena might require the employment of descriptions that are mutually exclusive yet jointly necessary for understanding life processes” (McKaughan 2011, p. 11). I explore Delbrück’s complementarity approach, in particular the debate between the reductive and anti-reductive interpretations of it. I argue for the latter interpretation by suggesting that Delbrück advanced an anti-reductive view towards biological explanations by advocating for independent status of explanations of various biological disciplines. Furthermore, I address the complementarity approach in the light of the anti-reductive interpretation in the recent developments in MB, particularly, the potentiality of finding the complementarity approach in systems biology, epigenetics, and boundary selection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Historiae Scientiarum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Historiae Scientiarum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4467/2543702xshs.23.016.17707\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Historiae Scientiarum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2543702xshs.23.016.17707","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我解决马克斯delbr的概念和实验重要性分子生物学(以下简称MB)起源。特别是,他的互补方法及其对MB(认知)还原论辩论的反还原含义。关于delbr的概念和实验重要性,我通过探索他的兴趣从物理学转向生物学来研究他对MB发展的影响。特别是,我概述了他在“噬菌体组”中的核心作用,“噬菌体组”是一个非正式的科学家小组,使用噬菌体作为他们选择的实验模型来研究遗传生命的起源。delbr和“噬菌体组”极大地影响了MB的发展,最终因发现病毒的复制机制和遗传结构而获得1969年诺贝尔奖。此外,我还研究了delbr对生物学解释的互补方法。生物学中的互补性假设“生物现象可能需要使用相互排斥但对理解生命过程共同必要的描述”(McKaughan 2011, p. 11)。我探讨了delbr克的互补性方法,特别是对它的还原和反还原解释之间的争论。我支持后一种解释,认为delbr通过提倡各种生物学科解释的独立地位,对生物学解释提出了一种反还原的观点。此外,根据最近MB的反还原解释,特别是在系统生物学、表观遗传学和边界选择中发现互补方法的可能性,我提出了互补方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reductionism Debate in Molecular Biology: Max Delbrück’s Complementarity Approach
In this paper, I address Max Delbrück’s conceptual and experimental importance for molecular biology (henceforth MB) origins. In particular, his complementarity approach and its anti-reductive implications on the (epistemic) reductionism debate in MB. Regarding Delbrück’s conceptual and experimental importance, I examine his influence on the development of MB by exploring a shift of his interests from physics to biology. Particularly, I outline his central role in “The Phage Group”, the informal group of scientists examining the origin of hereditary life using bacteriophages as their experimental model of choice. Delbrück and “The Phage Group” greatly influenced the development of MB, which culminated with the shared 1969 Nobel Prize for the discoveries regarding replication mechanism and genetic structure of viruses. Moreover, I examine Delbrück’s complementarity approach towards biological explanations. The complementarity in biology assumes that “biological phenomena might require the employment of descriptions that are mutually exclusive yet jointly necessary for understanding life processes” (McKaughan 2011, p. 11). I explore Delbrück’s complementarity approach, in particular the debate between the reductive and anti-reductive interpretations of it. I argue for the latter interpretation by suggesting that Delbrück advanced an anti-reductive view towards biological explanations by advocating for independent status of explanations of various biological disciplines. Furthermore, I address the complementarity approach in the light of the anti-reductive interpretation in the recent developments in MB, particularly, the potentiality of finding the complementarity approach in systems biology, epigenetics, and boundary selection.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Historiae Scientiarum
Studia Historiae Scientiarum Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信