生命信息安全控制体系整体结构性构建与分析

在前期生命信息安全控制原理探讨的基础上,基于整体论的思考,旨在构思能表述生命信息安全控制体系实质内涵的几何图形。所作图呈圆台形,自上而下依次为2大部分(内在部分和外延部分),5个层次(特异性识别系统、泛特异性识别系统、皮肤黏膜、共生微生物及外环境开放接触面)。在圆台形生命信息安全控制体系中,圆台形的中心轴为生命信息安全控制轴;特异性识别系统、泛特异性识别系统、皮肤、黏膜和共生微生物组成内在部分;外延部分即外环境开放接触面;内在部分各部间以及与外延部分之间存在物质、能量、信息交流沟通传递的空间界面。特异性识别系统建立在泛特异性识别系统基础上,置于最顶端,寓意着生物进化高级发展的一种客观结局,泛特异性识别系统与特异性识别系统作为一个整体和共生微生物层次联系,其中安插皮肤、黏膜组织层次,符合宏生物与微生物之间存在的完全不可分割的相关关系客观事实。共生微生物层次举足轻重,所占份额最大,主导整个体系的稳定性,成为整个体系的基座。就上述5个层次及其相互关系的解析归纳,证明构建的圆台形几何图能真实客观反映出生命信息安全控制体系各层次之间完全不可分割、相互依存影响的关系。     

Biosemiotics Within and Without Biological Holism: A Semio-historical Analysis

On the basis of a comparative analysis of the biosemiotic work of Jakob von Uexküll and of various theories on biological holism, this article takes a look at the question: what is the status of a semiotic approach in respect to a holistic one? The period from 1920 to 1940 was the peak-time of holistic theories, despite the fact that agreement on a unified and accepted set of holistic ideas was never reached. A variety of holisms, dependent on the cultural and disciplinary contexts, is sketched here from the works of Jan Smuts, Adolf Meyer-Abich, John Scott Haldane, Kurt Goldstein, Alfred North Whitehead and Wolfgang Köhler. In contrast with his contemporary holists, who used the model of an organism as a unifying explanatory tool for all levels of reality, Jakob von Uexküll confined himself to disciplinary organicism by extending the borders of the definition of “organism” without any intention to surpass the borders of biology itself. The comparison reveals also a significant difference in the perspectives of Uexküll and his contemporary holists, a difference between a view from a subjective centre in contrast with an all-encompassing structural view. Uexküll’s theories are fairly near to J. S. Haldane’s interpretation of an organism as a coordinative centre, but even here their models do not coincide. Although biosemiotics and holistic biology have different theoretical starting points and research-goals, it is possible nonetheless to place them under one and the same doctrinal roof.     

Each meal matters in the exposome: Biological and community considerations in fast-food-socioeconomic associations

Advances in omics and microbiome technology have transformed the ways in which the biological consequences of life in the ‘ecological theatre' can be visualized. Exposome science examines the total accumulated environmental exposures (both detrimental and beneficial) as a means to understand the response of the ‘total organism to the total environment' over time. The repetitive stimulation of compensatory physiological responses (immune, cardiovascular, neuroendocrine) in response to stress – including sources of stress highly relevant to socioeconomic disadvantage – may lead to metabolic dysregulation and cellular damage, ultimately influencing behavior and disease. The collective toll of physiological wear and tear, known as allostatic load, is not paid equally throughout developed societies. It is paid in excess by the disadvantaged. In the context of fast-food, human and experimental research demonstrates that the biological response to a single fast-food-style meal – especially as mediated by the microbiome- is a product of the person's total lived experience, including the ability to buffer the fast-food meal-induced promotion of inflammation and oxidative stress. Emerging research indicates that each meal and its nutritional context matters. As we discuss, equal weekly visits to major fast-food outlets by the affluent and deprived do not translate into biological equivalency. Hence, debate concerning reducing fast-food outlets through policy – especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods where they are prevalent – requires a biological context. The fast-food establishment and fast-food meal – as they represent matters of food justice and press upon non-communicable disease risk – are far more than physical structures and collections of carbohydrate, fat, sugar and sodium.     

Obscurantist Holism Versus Clear-Cut Analysis: Will Anthropology Obviate the Biology-Culture Divide?

Although holism has long been a central theme in anthropology, current perception is that anthropological discourse is being pulled apart along its biology-culture seams. Despite reservations among sociocultural theorists, Darwinism remains the only body of theory that purports to link sub-disciplines of anthropology. The importance of holism in anthropology is reconciled here with disciplinary fragmentation and evolutionary theory. While Darwinism appears to provide interdisciplinary theoretical ties, it cannot successfully relate sub-disciplines of anthropology because this theory itself relies on a preformationist divide between inherited and acquired characteristics. Increasingly subtle language of genetic information and constraints does not ameliorate this problem. Research potential for the ecological constraints model in biological anthropology is discussed. Developmental systems theory (DST) is advocated as a tool for working toward a holistic anthropology [Susan Oyama, Paul Griffiths, and Russell Gray, ``Introduction: What is Developmental Systems Theory?,'' in Susan Oyama, Paul Griffiths, and Russell Gray, eds., Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 1–11].