Approximations, idealizations and 'experiments' at the physics-biology interface

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)145-154
Number of pages10
JournalStudies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
Volume42
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

computer simulation
physics
biology
experiment
empirical research

Keywords

  • Complexity
  • Condensed matter physics
  • Models
  • Molecular biology
  • Physics-biology interface
  • Simulations
  • Systems biology

Cite this

@article{36fc673fbad24a648ab33c5c88536fc2,
title = "Approximations, idealizations and 'experiments' at the physics-biology interface",
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.",
keywords = "Complexity, Condensed matter physics, Models, Molecular biology, Physics-biology interface, Simulations, Systems biology",
author = "ROWBOTTOM, {Darrell Patrick}",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "145--154",
journal = "Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences",
issn = "1369-8486",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",
number = "2",

}

Approximations, idealizations and 'experiments' at the physics-biology interface. / ROWBOTTOM, Darrell Patrick.

In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 42, No. 2, 01.06.2011, p. 145-154.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Approximations, idealizations and 'experiments' at the physics-biology interface

AU - ROWBOTTOM, Darrell Patrick

PY - 2011/6/1

Y1 - 2011/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Complexity

KW - Condensed matter physics

KW - Models

KW - Molecular biology

KW - Physics-biology interface

KW - Simulations

KW - Systems biology

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/2666

U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021

DO - 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 42

SP - 145

EP - 154

JO - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

JF - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

SN - 1369-8486

IS - 2

ER -