The Objectivity of Organizational Functions

Abstract

We critique the organizational account of biological functions by showing how its basis in the closure of constraints fails to be objective. While the account treats constraints as objective features of physical systems, the number and relationship of potential constraints are subject to potentially arbitrary redescription by investigators. For example, we show that self-maintaining systems such as candle flames can realize closure on a more thorough analysis of the case, contradicting the claim that these “simple” systems lack functional organization. This also raises problems for Moreno and Mossio’s associated theory of biological autonomy, which asserts that living beings are distinguished by their possession of a closed system of constraints that channel and regulate their metabolic processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

(From (Montévil and Mossio 2015))

Fig. 2

(From (Moreno and Mossio 2015, 21; image credit to Maël Montévil))

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    We’ve substituted “→” in the quote for “=≫ ” used in the original text.

  2. 2.

    The term “constraint” appears to have two usages in (Moreno and Mossio 2015). On one hand, constraints are a kind of causal relationship between an entity and a process. “Constraints are local and contingent causes, exerted by specific structures or processes, which reduce the degrees of freedom of the system on which they act” (Moreno and Mossio 2015, 5), citing {Pattee:1972vh}. Similarly, “a trait T has a function if, and only if, it exerts a constraint subject to closure in an organisation O of a given system” (Moreno and Mossio 2015, 73). On the other hand, constraints are a kind of entity. “We suggest defining constraints as entities that exhibit a symmetry with respect to a process (or a set of processes) that they help stabilise” (Moreno and Mossio 2015, 11). Similarly, “constraints, in turn, refer to entities that, while acting upon these processes, can be said to remain unaffected by them, at least under certain conditions or from a certain point of view” (Moreno and Mossio 2015, 11). For clarity, we will restrict ourselves to the latter sense in which constraints are entities.

  3. 3.

    We use the definition from (Montévil and Mossio 2015) because it is stated slightly more formally, which helps highlight its key contents. We have also removed a parenthetical comment to a specific figure in (Montévil and Mossio 2015) for clarity.

  4. 4.

    Note that the quote below uses “constraint” to refer to a kind of causal influence the trait (an entity) has on some process in the system. (See also footnote 2.) A paraphrase using constraint as an entity would be “A trait T has a function if, and only if, it is a constraint for a process in the system and T is subject to closure in an organization O of the system.”.

  5. 5.

    To see why it matters, consider a cellular enzyme that undergoes a major allosteric change in shape upon binding to its substrate that is necessary for becoming catalytically active. The enzyme is thus constrained by the presence of the substrate, which itself is unaltered on the timescale of the allosteric change. For argument, let’s assume that the substrate is produced externally to the cell, and so it is not dependent on any other constraints involved in maintaining the cell’s existence. If being subject to closure requires direct dependence on a constraint in the closure set, then the enzyme fails this condition: the presence of the substrate contributes to maintaining the enzyme’s catalytic capacity after any other process enabled by the cell. On MM’s view, the enzyme would then be merely useful but not functional, which is an odd result (Moreno and Mossio 2015). Dropping the direct dependence requirement, however, leads to a parallel liberality problem that made directness important for closure in the first place. If a cell contributes to maintaining a feature of its environment, this feature could then count as functional if it contributes through an indefinitely long and complex chain of processes (subject to other constraints) to maintaining the cell’s organization.

  6. 6.

    Our thanks to an anonymous referee for raising these points.

References

  1. Achinstein P (1984) The pragmatic character of explanation. In: Philosophy of Science, pp 275–292

  2. Alon U (2007a) An introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alon U (2007b) Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nat Rev Genet 8(6):450–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnellos A, Moreno A (2012) How functional differentiation originated in prebiotic evolution. Ludus Vitalis 37:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  5. Artiga M (2011) Re-organizing organizational accounts of function. Appl Ontol 6(2):105–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Artiga M, Martínez M (2016) The organizational account of function is an etiological account of function. Acta Biotheor 64(2):105–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atkins PW (1984) The second law. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bich L, Mossio M, Ruiz-Mirazo K, Moreno A (2015) Biological regulation: controlling the system from within. Biol Philos 31(2):237–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Binney N (2018) The function of the heart is not obvious. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 68–69:56–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bowman GR, Pande VS (2010) Protein folded states are kinetic hubs. PNAS 107(24):10890–10895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Garson J (2016) A critical overview of biological functions. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Garson J (2017) Against organizational functions. Philos Sci 84(5):1093–1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldstein AM (2011) A defense of Achinstein’s pragmatism about explanation. In: Philosophy of science matters: the philosophy of Peter Achinstein. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 72–83

  14. Griesemer JR (2015) The enduring value of Gánti’s chemoton model and life criteria: Heuristic Pursuit of exact theoretical biology. J Theor Biol 3981:23–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jaeger J, Reinitz J (2006) On the dynamic nature of positional information. BioEssays 28(11):1102–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kauffman SA (2000) Investigations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mitchell SD (2009) Unsimple truths: science, complexity, and policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Montévil M, Mossio M (2015) Biological organisation as closure of constraints. J Theor Biol 372:179–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moreno A (2000) Closure, identity, and the emergence of formal causation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 901(1):112–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moreno A, Mossio M (2015) Biological autonomy. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Mossio M, Saborido C (2016) Functions, organization and etiology: a reply to Artiga and Martinez. Acta Biotheor 64(3):263–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mossio M, Saborido C, Moreno A (2009) An organizational account of biological functions. Br J Philos Sci 60(4):813–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Muller GB (2007) Evo-Devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nat Rev Genet 8(12):943–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Perez A, Roy A, Kasavajhala K, Wagaman A, Dill KA, MacCallum JL (2014) Extracting representative structures from protein conformational ensembles. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 82(10):2671–2680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rigden DJ (ed) (2017) From protein structure to function with bioinformatics. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ruiz-Mirazo K, Mavelli F (2008) On the way towards ‘basic autonomous agents’: stochastic simulations of minimal lipid-peptide cells. BioSystems 91(2):374–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ruiz-Mirazo K, Moreno A (2004) Basic autonomy as a fundamental step in the synthesis of life. Artif Life 10(3):235–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ruiz-Mirazo K, Moreno A (2011) Autonomy in evolution: from minimal to complex life. Synthese 185(1):21–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Saborido C, Moreno A (2015) Biological pathology from an organizational perspective. Theor Med 36(1):83–95

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saborido C, Mossio M, Moreno A (2011) Biological organization and cross-generation functions. Br J Philos Sci 62(3):583–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Varela FJ (1979) Principles of biological autonomy. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wilson M (2006) Wandering significance: an essay on conceptual behavior. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zhuravlev PI, Papoian GA (2010) Protein functional landscapes, dynamics, allostery: a tortuous path towards a universal theoretical framework. Q Rev Biophys 43(03):295–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the University of Michigan and its Society of Fellows program for providing us with the time and support to collaborate on this project, and Erin Barringer-Sterner for help designing our figures. We also thank the referees and editors for their detailed and constructive feedback, which helped improve the manuscript substantially.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beckett Sterner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cusimano, S., Sterner, B. The Objectivity of Organizational Functions. Acta Biotheor 68, 253–269 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-019-09365-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biological autonomy
  • Feed forward loop
  • Network motifs
  • Constraints
  • Biological individuality
  • Biological function