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

Darrell Patrick ROWBOTTOM

doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021

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

Darrell Patrick ROWBOTTOM

Research output: Journal Publications › Journal Article (refereed) › peer-review

14 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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	145-154
Number of pages	10
Journal	Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
Volume	42
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021
Publication status	Published - 1 Jun 2011
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

I am grateful to Alexander Bird for comments on an embryonic version, as well as to my other collaborators on the project—Wilson Poon, Tom McLeish, and Greg Radick—for their help and advice. I am also grateful for the comments of audience members at the ‘Physics Meets Biology’ conference held in order to mark the culmination of the project, especially Otávio Bueno, Mike Cates, Steven French, Evelyn Fox Keller, and Michel Morange. Finally, I owe my thanks to Alexander Bird and Jane Calvert for acting in an editorial capacity for this paper, and to the anonymous referees that they selected for their insightful criticisms and suggestions.

Keywords

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

Access to Document

10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021

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 {\textquoteleft}systems biology{\textquoteright} 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}",

note = "I am grateful to Alexander Bird for comments on an embryonic version, as well as to my other collaborators on the project—Wilson Poon, Tom McLeish, and Greg Radick—for their help and advice. I am also grateful for the comments of audience members at the {\textquoteleft}Physics Meets Biology{\textquoteright} conference held in order to mark the culmination of the project, especially Ot{\'a}vio Bueno, Mike Cates, Steven French, Evelyn Fox Keller, and Michel Morange. Finally, I owe my thanks to Alexander Bird and Jane Calvert for acting in an editorial capacity for this paper, and to the anonymous referees that they selected for their insightful criticisms and suggestions.",

year = "2011",

month = jun,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021",

language = "English",

volume = "42",

pages = "145--154",

journal = "Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences",

issn = "1369-8486",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

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

AU - ROWBOTTOM, Darrell Patrick

N1 - I am grateful to Alexander Bird for comments on an embryonic version, as well as to my other collaborators on the project—Wilson Poon, Tom McLeish, and Greg Radick—for their help and advice. I am also grateful for the comments of audience members at the ‘Physics Meets Biology’ conference held in order to mark the culmination of the project, especially Otávio Bueno, Mike Cates, Steven French, Evelyn Fox Keller, and Michel Morange. Finally, I owe my thanks to Alexander Bird and Jane Calvert for acting in an editorial capacity for this paper, and to the anonymous referees that they selected for their insightful criticisms and suggestions.

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

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79954426210&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021

DO - 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

C2 - 21486652

SN - 1369-8486

VL - 42

SP - 145

EP - 154

JO - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

JF - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

IS - 2

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this