Pluralization through epistemic competition: scientific change in times of data-intensive biology
We present two case studies from contemporary biology in which we observe conflicts between established and emerging approaches. The first case study discusses the relation between molecular biology and systems biology regarding the explanation of cellular processes, while the second deals with phylogenetic systematics and the challenge posed by recent network approaches to established ideas of evolutionary processes. We show that the emergence of new fields is in both cases driven by the development of high-throughput data generation technologies and the transfer of modeling techniques from other fields. New and emerging views are characterized by different philosophies of nature, i.e. by different ontological and methodological assumptions and epistemic values and virtues. This results in a kind of conflict we call “epistemic competition” that manifests in two ways: On the one hand, opponents engage in mutual critique and defense of their fundamental assumptions. On the other hand, they compete for the acceptance and integration of the knowledge they provide by a broader scientific community. Despite an initial rhetoric of replacement, the views as well as the respective audiences come to be seen as more clearly distinct during the course of the debate. Hence, we observe—contrary to many other accounts of scientific change—that conflict results in the formation of new niches of research, leading to co-existence and perceived complementarity of approaches. Our model thus contributes to the understanding of the pluralization of the scientific landscape.
KeywordsScientific change Epistemic competition Data-intensive biology Systems biology Phylogenetic systematics Network models
This paper was written in the context of the International Biophilosophical School (University of Padua, 27-30 April 2015) as part of the “Integrative Biophilosophy” research project located at the University of Kassel. Funding by the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank Kristian Köchy, Pierre-Luc Germain, the Editor of the Journal and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. R.M. wishes to acknowledge the hospitality of the Institute for Cultural Inquiry (ICI) Berlin where he was an affiliated fellow while revising the paper.
- Alon, U. (2007). An Introduction to systems biology: Design principles of biological circuits. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
- Andersen, H., & Hepburn, B. (2013). Scientific change. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/s-change/. Accessed March 21, 2017.
- Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the growth of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Burtt, E. A. (1925). The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. LTD.Google Scholar
- Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Book.Google Scholar
- Doolittle, W. F. (2005). If the tree of life fell, would we recognize the sound? In J. Sapp (Ed.), Microbial phylogeny and evolution. Concepts and controversies (pp. 119–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Forster, D., Bittner, L., Karkar, S., Dunthorn, M., Romac, S., Audic, S., et al. (2015). Testing ecological theories with sequence similarity networks: Marine ciliates exhibit similar geographic dispersal patterns as multicellular organisms. BMC Biology, 13 , 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-015-0125-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gross, F. (2013). The sum of the parts: Heuristic strategies in systems biology. https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/218890/267736/phd_unimi_R08430.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2017.
- Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Waters, C. K. (2006). Introduction: The pluralist stance. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino, & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. vii–xxix). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Köchy, K. (2009). Naturphilosophie ist mehr als angewandte Wissenschaftstheorie. In C. Kummer (Ed.), Was ist Naturphilosophie und was kann sie leisten? (pp. 38–56). Alber: Freiburg & München.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Loscalzo, J., & Barabási, A.-L. (2011). Systems biology and the future of medicine. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine, 3(6), 619–627.Google Scholar
- Maienschein, J. (2000). Competing epistemologies and developmental biology. In R. Creath & J. Maienschein (Eds.), Biology and epistemology (pp. 122–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Merz, M., & Sormani, P. (Eds.). (2015). The local configuration of new research fields: On regional and national diversity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Morrison, D. A. (2011). Introduction to phylogenetic networks. Uppsala: RJR Productions.Google Scholar
- Nickelsen, K. (2014). Kooperation und Konkurrenz in den Naturwissenschaften. In R. Jessen (Ed.), Konkurrenz in der Geschichte: Praktiken - Werte - Institutionalisierungen (pp. 333–379). Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
- Oberheim, E., & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2018). The incommensurability of scientific theories. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incommensurability/. Accessed November 16, 2018.
- Powell, A., O’Malley, M. A., Müller-Wille, S., Calvert, J., & Dupré, J. (2007). Disciplinary baptisms: A comparison of the naming stories of genetics, molecular biology, genomics, and systems biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 29(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
- Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Shapere, D. (1984). Reason and the search for knowledge: Investigations in the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Soler, L., Sankey, H., & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (Eds.). (2008). Rethinking scientific change and theory comparison: Stabilities, ruptures, incommensurabilities? Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Völkel, F., Bapteste, E., Habib, M., Lopez, P., & Vigliotti, C. (2016). Read networks and k-laminar graphs. Computing Research Repository. arXiv:1603.01179
- Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes: A discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
- Weingart, P. (1974). On a sociological theory of scientific change. In R. Whitley (Ed.), Social processes of scientific development (pp. 45–68). London: Law Book Co of Australasia.Google Scholar