Rethinking the life sciences

The life sciences are at loggerheads with society and neither much trusts the other. To unleash the full potential of molecular life science, a new contract with society and more organized ways of doing research are needed.Suppose that an international group of scientists presents a 15-year, €750 million research programme to unravel the molecular mechanisms of metabolic syndrome, a disorder implicated in obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer and other diseases. The results from this project will neither replace obvious preventive measures—such as reducing food intake or increasing exercise—nor will it magically generate pharmaceutical treatments. Instead, the research aims to gain a systems-level understanding of metabolic syndrome that could lead to more effective prevention schemes, improved food quality, improved early diagnosis of people with higher risk, and better therapies and drugs. From an economic point of view, this is an excellent investment, as the costs of obesity and its co-morbidities in the European Union are estimated to increase to €100 billion per year in 2030 [1]. If the proposed research project helped to lower the costs by only 10%, it would generate a considerable return on investment.Sadly, such a project would be unlikely to receive funding. The reason is not because it would be scientifically unrealistic or unfeasible, or because society does not want to support expensive research programmes. The Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to identify the Higgs boson and the European Southern Observatory in Chile are all examples of large-scale research programmes that are publicly funded. Rather, the life sciences suffer from a unique set of problems that have developed in the past decades and would prevent such a project receiving popular support and funding. This article explores why this is the case and how modern life sciences could contribute more to society. Specifically, we argue that two areas need rethinking: the embedding of the life sciences in society and the way that research is organized.There are more than seven billion humans on this planet who need food, energy and health care, and life science research has a huge potential to address these needs. However, critics point out that many of the promises made by life scientists in the past have still not materialized. One example is the promises made to justify the US $3 billion spent on the Human Genome Project. It was supposed to provide a ‘blueprint of life'' that would quickly lead to new approaches for curing diseases. In the end, however, despite its success at generating new research fields and knowledge, the Human Genome Project has not (yet) lived up to its promises.…critics point out that many of the promises made by life scientists in the past have still not materializedWorse still, some critics perceive the life sciences as a problem that is creating physical and moral hazards. Rather than writing a blank cheque to allow scientists to pursue their research goals, governments are increasingly demanding control over the direction and application of research. This approach tends to reward short-term applications of scientific resources to help solve societal problems. Moreover, the success of projects has to be demonstrated at the application stage, before any of the research has even begun, which is fundamentally incompatible with the trial-and-error processes at the heart of creative research. Long-term, in-depth investments in research have become unpopular. Ironically, this ‘short-termism'' undermines the potential of the life sciences to be realized. Life sciences and society seem to be in a dead-lock.The life sciences must therefore regain the trust of society. This cannot be done merely by emphasizing academic freedom and the autonomy of science, or by promoting the so-called ‘cornucopia'' of science and technology, implying that both bring only precious gifts. It is also not useful to suggest that morals should follow scientific and technological developments rather than shape them. It is equally counterproductive when scientists deny taking responsibility for how their findings are applied after they leave the laboratory. As Ravetz [2] famously remarked: “Scientists claim credit for penicillin, while Society takes the blame for the Bomb”. In reality, the definition of ends is always influenced by the available means.One approach to restore the trust between the life sciences and society is to create platforms that allow for open and symmetrical dialogue. Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch, as the recent discussions about responsible research and innovation (RRI; [3,4,5]) have already begun this process. According to René von Schomberg, policy officer at the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, RRI is “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products” [5]. An example is the EU ‘Code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research''. The concept is also expected to have a major role in the upcoming EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020'', and national research councils in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands are supporting initiatives under this heading. The National Nanotechnology Initiative in the USA heralds ‘responsible development'', and the Presidential Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues recommends ‘responsible stewardship'' and ‘prudent vigilance'' in relation to synthetic biology.…‘short-termism'' undermines the potential of the life sciences to be realizedThe starting point of RRI is that society, science, technology and morality comprise a single system. If one component changes, the others are also affected. The traditional division of labour—science provides knowledge and instruments, whilst society determines values and application—therefore does not work anymore. Life scientists have to acknowledge and accept that society is co-shaping their agenda. Scientists should also realise that vice versa they co-shape society, rather than just offering knowledge and tools. In other words, science and society co-evolve [6]. Bringing life sciences and society closer together requires the concerted efforts of life scientists, social scientists, ethicists, legal experts, economists, policy-makers, market parties and laypeople.Research and technology are rational activities at the micro level. Science is superior to other methods for creating reliable, testable knowledge, and technology is unmatched in providing solutions to many problems. But both tend to become irrational at higher levels of organization—we drive highly sophisticated cars and still get stuck in traffic jams, nuclear waste remains a huge problem for generations to come, and knowledge and technology have enabled increasingly lethal weaponry. Science and technology therefore need moral guidelines—such as ‘the precautionary principle''—to direct what kind of knowledge is worth pursuing and should be applied, why and for whom. This is a one-sided view, however, that ignores the perspective of the scientific method. As science proceeds by trial and error, it must be fundamentally open to pursue any avenue of knowledge. As such, new scientific insight and technological opportunities can often necessitate a reappraisal of established morals. Keeping science, technology and morality in contact with each other requires more than rules and prohibitions that can be ticked off on a form. It needs a culture of attentiveness and reflection to avoid tunnel vision whilst allowing flexibility and improvisation to learn from mistakes and change course if needed.During the past two decades, many experiments in public understanding, awareness and participation in science and technology have been conducted. In the Netherlands, for instance, this has included science cafes, citizen panels [7], nation-wide public debates about nuclear energy [8], biotechnology and food in 2001 [9], and public participation (http://www.nanopodium.nl). It is yet to be determined how effective these efforts have been. Appreciating that science and technology, as well as society and morality, constitute parts of a larger system demands skills, institutions and procedures that have not as yet been adequately developed. Indeed, many scientists continue to adhere to a ‘knowledge deficit'' model of public outreach that has scientists ‘explaining'' scientific developments to an audience that is perceived to be ignorant at best and technophobic at worst. On the other hand, NGOs have sometimes hijacked discussions by simply being ‘against'', rather than contributing to the debate in an open and constructive manner. Another problem is that the life sciences are poorly organized. They lack an organization that represents the community and can professionalize the relationship between society and life sciences.What are the requirements for developing responsibly the relationship between society and the life sciences? First, it is important that scientists are explicit about the trial-and-error character of research, and are honest and transparent about the results they expect, rather than inducing unrealistic expectations. Laypeople should be made aware of how the life sciences function and what they might achieve. It is also important that citizens understand that science produces theories that can be corroborated to some degree rather than absolute certainties, and that technology offers solutions that can do both more or less than expected. This should also make clear that the distinction between fundamental science and applied technology is both real and illusionary. It is real because it is important to allow space for unfettered curiosity. It is illusionary because even the most ‘fundamental'' research is usually embedded in a general normative vision about its possible use. Moreover, even truly applied research can generate new fundamental insight.Second, it is important to engage societal actors as early as possible in the research enterprise, so that they can determine the research agenda rather than be confronted with final results and products. A specific suggestion would be to attach a ‘layman advisory board'' to large research programmes. Although the tasks of such boards should be defined carefully to avoid tying them up in minutiae, such boards can help to enhance the involvement of society in the life sciences. Engaging interested individuals and stakeholders early on in the process and offering them an opportunity to influence the research agenda would help to foster a constructive attitude.These boards should put the definitions, visions and goals of scientific research to the social test and set research priorities accordingly. Research is inevitably conducted with reference to priorities—such as advancing knowledge, improving public health, economic development and military use—but setting these priorities exceeds the authority of science. We need social scientists, philosophers, lawyers, policy-makers, politicians, companies, opinion-makers, NGOs and patient organizations to discuss with life scientists how scientific results can be developed to benefit society. For example, because knowledge can be viewed as an economically valuable resource, we have to consider whether intellectual property laws are adequate to deal with new forms of knowledge. The ongoing debate about the legal and moral problems of intellectual property [10] also highlights issues of fairness and justice. How will science and technology influence prevailing ideas about the meaning of a ‘healthy life''? How much do we value physical and mental health, how much are we willing to invest in this value, and how will society react to choices made by individuals? The life sciences are creating enormous data collections about individuals, which raises issues about access, privacy, ownership and consent. Discussing these issues would neither put the life sciences in a strait jacket nor would it curtail curiosity-driven research. On the contrary, we should be more worried about the current situation, in which governments set the agenda by choosing which areas are funded without consulting the life sciences community or other stakeholders.The sequencing of the human genome and the rapid development of new technologies and research fields—genomics, proteomics, advanced light microscopy, bioinformatics, systems biology and synthetic biology—have not yet paid off in terms of highly visible applications that provide a significant benefit to society. However, there are many examples of progress both scientifically and clinically, such as the ongoing Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements project (ENCODE; http://encodeproject.org), the stratification of patients for anti-cancer therapies based on molecular markers or the creation of genetically modified disease-resistant plants. Notwithstanding, applying the new technologies made scientists realize that biological systems are much more complex than anticipated. The multi-layered and multi-scale complexity of cells, organisms and ecosystems is a huge challenge for research in terms of generating, analysing and integrating enormous amounts of data to gain a better understanding of living systems at all levels of organization.However, and remarkably, the life sciences have not adapted accordingly to tackle bigger challenges with larger teams comparable with their colleagues in physics and astronomy. Most research is still carried out by small groups or collaborations that are woefully inadequate to address the full complexity of living systems. This type of research is grounded in the history of molecular biology when scientists focused on individual genes, proteins and metabolic pathways. Scientists hope that many small discoveries and advances made by many individual research groups will eventually add up to a more complete picture, an approach that clearly does not work and must change. The new challenge is to systematically acquire and integrate comprehensive data sets on the huge number of components at the cellular level and that of tissues, organs and complete organisms. This requires the life sciences to scale up their research efforts into larger projects.The putative research programme described at the beginning of this paper could help to reduce the health and economic burden of metabolic syndrome. This multifactorial disorder is an excellent example of the complex interplay between organs, tissues, cells, molecules, lifestyle, genetic factors, age and stress. Unravelling this daunting but finite complexity requires a major and well-coordinated effort. It would have to combine diverse skills and disciplines, including biology, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, physics and engineering. Similar considerations are true for research into areas such as cancer, Alzheimer disease or the development of efficient biofuels. Why, then, are we not making the necessary investments? The answer to this question has four components that we address below: scaling and management of research programmes, the academic culture and funding.First, one could argue that many national and European research programmes already focus on many aspects of metabolic syndrome. Together, they probably represent an investment of several hundred million Euros. So why spend another €750 million? The problem is that the results from individual research efforts simply do not add up due to a lack of standardization in regard to experiments, the use of model systems and protocols. Given the complexity of the disease, defining standard operation protocols (SOPs) is not a trivial task and requires a considerable research effort. However, experience shows that developing SOPs should be an integral part of larger research programmes. Moreover, SOPs change as our knowledge increases. SOPs can only be effective and stimulate research in the context of a sufficiently large and receptive research community, dedicated to a common well-defined research goal. An example of the successful development and implementation of SOPs in a ‘learning-by-doing'' setting is the German Virtual Liver Network (VLN) programme (http://www.virtual-liver.de). Obviously, a considerable fraction of the €750 million should come from regrouping and readjusting existing research in the field of metabolic syndrome.Second, we have remarkably little experience in managing concerted large-scale research efforts in the life sciences in the range of €100–1,000 million. The Human Genome Project cost US $3 billion. However, genomes are just DNA sequences, and it is relatively easy to define SOPs and integrate the contributions of many research groups. In terms of research management it was relatively straightforward compared with, for instance, a metabolic syndrome programme, which would have many more dimensions and components. It would require a highly coordinated approach, as the experiments of the participating research groups from different institutes and countries are strongly interdependent and the results must add up to a larger picture.To keep such a complex research programme on track, on time and within budget, strategic decisions will inevitably need to be made at a central level, rather than by individual researchers. A serious risk is that scaling-up coordinated research efforts will result in excessive bureaucracy and inflexibility that could kill creativity. Avoiding this problem is a major challenge. The life sciences could learn here from large, long-term projects in other fields, such as high-energy physics, astronomy and ecology. An instructive example is the Census of Marine Life programme [11] that successfully measured the diversity, distribution and abundance of marine life in the oceans over ten years. It involved 80 countries and 640 institutions and had a budget of US $650 million [12]. A recent overview and analysis of large-scale research efforts in the life sciences has been presented and discussed in [13,14,15].A third aspect is academic culture, which cherishes freedom, independence and competition and will not necessarily mesh well with the idea of large, tightly managed research programmes. Even so, research institutions will probably compete to participate in goal-oriented, large-scale research programmes. In fact, this is largely similar to the way most research is funded presently, for instance, through the Framework Programmes of the European Commission, except that the total collective effort is scaled up by one to two orders of magnitude. Moreover, as large-scale efforts involve longer timescales of between 10 and 15 years, it would offer a more stable basis of financing research. However, as the cooperation between parties and their interdependency will need to increase, participating research institutes and consortia will be held much more accountable for their contribution to the overall goals. ‘Take-the-money-and-run'' is no longer an option. This will obviously require explicit agreements between a programme director and participating institutions.In addition, academic institutions should rethink their criteria for selecting and promoting researchers. The impact factor, h-factor and citation scores [16] will have to be abandoned or modified as large-scale research efforts with an increasing number of multi-author publications will decrease their ability to assess individuals. Consequently, less emphasis will be put on first or last authorships, whilst project and team management skills might become more relevant.Academic freedom and creativity will be just as essential to a collective research enterprise as it is to small projects and collaborations. Large-scale research programmes will create new scientific questions and challenges, but they will not tell investigators how to address these. Academics will be free to choose how to proceed within the programme. Moreover, researchers will benefit from tapping into well-structured, large, knowledge bases, and they will have early access to the relevant data of others. Hence, being part of a large, well-organized research community brings benefits that might compensate for a perceived decrease in independence. Again, all of this depends strongly on how a large-scale programme is organized and managed, including the distribution of responsibilities, data-sharing policies and exchanges of expertise. Competition will probably remain part of the scientific endeavour, but it is important that it does not hamper collaboration and data sharing.Whilst we stress the need for larger-scale research efforts in the life sciences to have an impact on society, we also want to acknowledge the crucial role of classical curiosity-driven research programmes. It is essential to develop a reasonable and effective balance between different types of research in life sciences.A fourth issue is the lack of adequate funding mechanisms for international, large-scale research efforts. Given the ambiguous relationship between the life sciences and society—as argued in the first part of this essay—this problem can only be solved if life scientists convince policy-makers, funders and politicians that research can significantly contribute to solving societal problems and at reasonable costs. If not, life sciences will not flourish and society will not profit. As argued above, research efforts should be scaled to the complexity of the systems they intend to investigate. There are only a few problem-focused research programmes with a volume of more than €50 million. The VLN, funded to the tune of €43 million over five years by the German ministry for education and research, comes close. Its aim is to deliver a multi-scale representation of liver physiology, integrating data from the molecular, cellular and organ levels. The VLN involves 69 principal investigators dispersed throughout Germany and is headed by a director who is responsible for keeping the programme on track and on time. Issues such as standardization, division of responsibilities between the director and principal investigators, and decision-making procedures are tackled as the programme develops.If it is possible to rekindle the trust between society and the life sciences, will society be more willing to fund expensive, large-scale research programmes? Previous examples of publicly funded scientific and technological programmes in the multi-billion Euro range are the Large Hadron Collider, the Apollo programme and the Human Genome Project. Amazingly, none of these contributed directly to human well-being, although the Human Genome Project did make such promises. Hence, a life science programme that targets a crucial societal problem convincingly, such as metabolic syndrome, should have a fair chance of being acceptable and fundable.The above four issues must be addressed before the life sciences can successfully tackle major societal problems. It will need action from the research community itself, which is painfully lacking an organization to speak on behalf of life scientists and that can take the lead in discussions, internally and between society and science. Any such organization could learn from other areas, such as high-energy physics (CERN), astronomy (European Southern Observatory) and space research (European Space Agency). It would be tremendously helpful if a group of life scientists would get this issue on the agenda. This paper is meant to stimulate that process.In summary, we argue that if society wants to benefit from what the modern life sciences have to offer, we must act on two parallel tracks. One is to bring the life sciences closer to society and accept that society, science and morality are inseparable. The other is to rethink how we organize research in the life sciences. Both tracks create major challenges that can only be tackled successfully if the life sciences get organized and create a body that can lead the debate. At a more fundamental level, we need to decide what type of knowledge we want to acquire and why. Clearly, the value of generating knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself is important, but it must constantly be balanced with the values of society, which requires a dialogue between researchers and society.? Open in a separate windowTsjalling SwierstraOpen in a separate windowNiki VermeulenOpen in a separate windowJohan BraeckmanOpen in a separate windowRoel van Driel     

Learning developmental biology has priority in the life sciences curriculum in Singapore

Singapore has embraced the life sciences as an important discipline to be emphasized in schools and universities. This is part of the nation's strategic move towards a knowledge-based economy, with the life sciences poised as a new engine for economic growth. In the life sciences, the area of developmental biology is of prime interest, since it is not just intriguing for students to know how a single cell can give rise to a complex, coordinated, functional life that is multicellular and multifaceted, but more importantly, there is much in developmental biology that can have biomedical implications. At different levels in the Singapore educational system, students are exposed to various aspects of developmental biology. The author has given many guest lectures to secondary (ages 12-16) and high school (ages 17-18) students to enthuse them about topics such as embryo cloning and stem cell biology. At the university level, some selected topics in developmental biology are part of a broader course which caters for students not majoring in the life sciences, so that they will learn to comprehend how development takes place and the significance of the knowledge and impacts of the technologies derived in the field. For students majoring in the life sciences, the subject is taught progressively in years two and three, so that students will gain specialist knowledge in developmental biology. As they learn, students are exposed to concepts, principles and mechanisms that underlie development. Different model organisms are studied to demonstrate the rapid advances in this field and to show the interconnectivity of developmental themes among living things. The course inevitably touches on life and death matters, and the social and ethical implications of recent technologies which enable scientists to manipulate life are discussed accordingly, either in class, in a discussion forum, or through essay writing.     

"Shrink wrapping" lectures: teaching cell and molecular biology within the context of human pathologies

Students are most motivated and learn best when they are immersed in an environment that causes them to realize why they should learn. Perhaps nowhere is this truer than when teaching the biological sciences to engineers. Transitioning from a traditionally mathematics-based to a traditionally knowledge-based pedagogical style can challenge student learning and engagement. To address this, human pathologies were used as a problem-based context for teaching knowledge-based cell biological mechanisms. Lectures were divided into four modules. First, a disease was presented from clinical, economic, and etiological standpoints. Second, fundamental concepts of cell and molecular biology were taught that were directly relevant to that disease. Finally, we discussed the cellular and molecular basis of the disease based on these fundamental concepts, together with current clinical approaches to the disease. The basic science is thus presented within a "shrink wrap" of disease application. Evaluation of this contextual technique suggests that it is very useful in improving undergraduate student focus and motivation, and offers many advantages to the instructor as well.     

Evolutionary psychiatry: foundations,progress and challenges

Evolutionary biology provides a crucial foundation for medicine and behavioral science that has been missing from psychiatry. Its absence helps to explain slow progress; its advent promises major advances. Instead of offering a new kind of treatment, evolutionary psychiatry provides a scientific foundation useful for all kinds of treatment. It expands the search for causes from mechanistic explanations for disease in some individuals to evolutionary explanations for traits that make all members of a species vulnerable to disease. For instance, capacities for symptoms such as pain, cough, anxiety and low mood are universal because they are useful in certain situations. Failing to recognize the utility of anxiety and low mood is at the root of many problems in psychiatry. Determining if an emotion is normal and if it is useful requires understanding an individual's life situation. Conducting a review of social systems, parallel to the review of systems in the rest of medicine, can help achieve that understanding. Coping with substance abuse is advanced by acknowledging how substances available in modern environments hijack chemically mediated learning mechanisms. Understanding why eating spirals out of control in modern environments is aided by recognizing the motivations for caloric restriction and how it arouses famine protection mechanisms that induce binge eating. Finally, explaining the persistence of alleles that cause serious mental disorders requires evolutionary explanations of why some systems are intrinsically vulnerable to failure. The thrill of finding functions for apparent diseases is evolutionary psychiatry's greatest strength and weakness. Recognizing bad feelings as evolved adaptations corrects psychiatry's pervasive mistake of viewing all symptoms as if they were disease manifestations. However, viewing diseases such as panic disorder, melancholia and schizophrenia as if they are adaptations is an equally serious mistake in evolutionary psychiatry. Progress will come from framing and testing specific hypotheses about why natural selection left us vulnerable to mental disorders. The efforts of many people over many years will be needed before we will know if evolutionary biology can provide a new paradigm for understanding and treating mental disorders.     

Teleology in biology: Is it a cause for concern?

Evolutionary biology is distinctively forward looking or 'teleological' in its way of thought. In this, it distinguishes itself from the physical sciences. One can ask for the purpose or function of the stegoseaur's fins. One would never ask for the function of a planet. Many, including biologists, worry that such teleology is an unhappy legacy of a Christian past. Although teleology does have its roots in pre-evolutionary thought, there are good reasons why it has persisted, and there are equally good reasons why it should be cherished.     

Biochemistry and evolutionary biology: Two disciplines that need each other

Biochemical information has been crucial for the development of evolutionary biology. On the one hand, the sequence information now appearing is producing a huge increase in the amount of data available for phylogenetic analysis; on the other hand, and perhaps more fundamentally, it allows understanding of the mechanisms that make evolution possible. Less well recognized, but just as important, understanding evolutionary biology is essential for understanding many details of biochemistry that would otherwise be mysterious, such as why the structures of NAD and other coenzymes are far more complicated than their functions would seem to require. Courses of biochemistry should thus pay attention to the essential role of evolution in selecting the molecules of life.     

Six things Popper would like biologists not to ignore: In memoriam, Karl Raimund Popper, 1902–1994

To honour the memory of Sir Karl Popper, I put forward six elements of his philosophy which might be of particular interest to biologists and to philosophers of biology and which I think Popper would like them not to ignore, even if they disagree with him. They are: the primacy of problems; the criticizability of metaphysics (and thus the dubiousness of materialism); how downward causation might be real; how norms should matter to scientists; why dogmatism should be avoided; how genuine science is recognizable. I preface these six things with a brief discussion of Popper's early (but later recanted) mistakes concerning biology.     

Biostructural theory of the living systems

Eugen Macovschi is among the few scientists who tried, and partly succeeded, to explain the differences between "dead" and "living" in biological sciences. He discovered and characterized the so-called biostructure of the living bodies and worked out a biostructural theory, which is the first supramolecular conception in biology. Nevertheless, complex biological systems are currently considered only from the molecular point of view, although they may be regarded as specific phenomena on highly structured bodies within the four-dimensional Universe. According to Macovschi, the biostructure provides organisms with life properties and controls their life processes and chemical changes. Nevertheless, plant cells or bacterial ones differ much from the animal or human cells. In fact, there are various biostructures which are related with cell properties. Hence, this theory creates confusions and cannot be easily used to explain all the properties of the biosystems. Consequently, it is our goal to highlight the principles, advantages, limitations, and applications of the biostructural theory, which might support new ideas and theories in modern life sciences.     

科技考古研究范式之思考

范式自20世纪60年代创立以来,已普遍使用于多个科学研究领域,并于七八十年代引入至考古学。目前,国内外学界对考古学的研究范式有不少讨论,但对科技考古的研究范式的认知仍属空白。本文在简要介绍科学研究范式和考古学研究范式的基础上,首次提出了科技考古研究的3种范式,即科技范式、考古范式、科技考古融合范式,详细阐述了3种研究范式的理论、方法、实践等。此外,本文还指出：科技范式是推动科技考古研究发展的“发动机”,考古范式是掌控科技考古研究方向的“方向盘”,而科技考古融合范式则是协调科技考古各研究领域的“中控台”,真正让科技与考古融为一体。最后,笔者还对在科技考古研究范式下如何构建研究人员的知识体系提出了一些看法。     

The role of pattern recognition in creative problem solving: A case study in search of new mathematics for biology

Rosen classified sciences into two categories: formalizable and unformalizable. Whereas formalizable sciences expressed in terms of mathematical theories were highly valued by Rutherford, Hutchins pointed out that unformalizable parts of soft sciences are of genuine interest and importance. Attempts to build mathematical theories for biology in the past century was met with modest and sporadic successes, and only in simple systems. In this article, a qualitative model of humans' high creativity is presented as a starting point to consider whether the gap between soft and hard sciences is bridgeable. Simonton's chance-configuration theory, which mimics the process of evolution, was modified and improved. By treating problem solving as a process of pattern recognition, the known dichotomy of visual thinking vs. verbal thinking can be recast in terms of analog pattern recognition (non-algorithmic process) and digital pattern recognition (algorithmic process), respectively. Additional concepts commonly encountered in computer science, operations research and artificial intelligence were also invoked: heuristic searching, parallel and sequential processing. The refurbished chance-configuration model is now capable of explaining several long-standing puzzles in human cognition: a) why novel discoveries often came without prior warning, b) why some creators had no ideas about the source of inspiration even after the fact, c) why some creators were consistently luckier than others, and, last but not least, d) why it was so difficult to explain what intuition, inspiration, insight, hunch, serendipity, etc. are all about. The predictive power of the present model was tested by means of resolving Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise after one deliberately invoked visual thinking. Additional evidence of its predictive power must await future large-scale field studies. The analysis was further generalized to constructions of scientific theories in general. This approach is in line with Campbell's evolutionary epistemology. Instead of treating science as immutable Natural Laws, which already existed and which were just waiting to be discovered, scientific theories are regarded as humans' mental constructs, which must be invented to reconcile with observed natural phenomena. In this way, the pursuit of science is shifted from diligent and systematic (or random) searching for existing Natural Laws to firing up humans' imagination to comprehend Nature's behavioral pattern. The insights gained in understanding human creativity indicated that new mathematics that is capable of handling effectively parallel processing and human subjectivity is sorely needed. The past classification of formalizability vs. non-formalizability was made in reference to contemporary mathematics. Rosen's conclusion did not preclude future inventions of new biology-friendly mathematics.     

On the evolutionary origin of aging

It is generally believed that the first organisms did not age, and that aging thus evolved at some point in the history of life. When and why this transition occurred is a fundamental question in evolutionary biology. Recent reports of aging in bacteria suggest that aging predates the emergence of eukaryotes and originated in simple unicellular organisms. Here we use simple models to study why such organisms would evolve aging. These models show that the differentiation between an aging parent and a rejuvenated offspring readily evolves as a strategy to cope with damage that accumulates due to vital activities. We use measurements of the age-specific performance of individual bacteria to test the assumptions of the model, and find evidence that they are fulfilled. The mechanism that leads to aging is expected to operate in a wide range of organisms, suggesting that aging evolved early and repeatedly in the history of life. Aging might thus be a more fundamental aspect of cellular organisms than assumed so far.     

The urgency of building global capacity for biodiversity science

The biodiversity sciences represent the disciplines of whole-organism biology, including systematics, ecology, population biology, behaviour and the fields of comparative biology. The biodiversity sciences are critically important to society because it is knowledge of whole-organisms that is essential for managing and conserving the world's species. Because of an acceleration in environmental degradation and global biodiversity loss in recent decades, the need for the biodiversity sciences has never been more urgent. Yet, biodiversity science is not well supported relative to other fields of science, and thus the need for knowledge about organisms and their environment is far outstripping biologists' ability to provide it. National and international capacity for biodiversity science must therefore be increased substantially. Each nation should establish a national biodiversity research programme coordinated across all government agencies. An international biodiversity research programme should also be established, perhaps with an organizational structure that parallels the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. Biodiversity scientists must assume a leadership role in educating the public and bringing about policy changes that will enhance our understanding of the world's species and their ecosystems.     

Welcome to the revolution: integrative biology and assessing the impact of endocrine disruptors on environmental and public health

Concern continues to grow over the negative impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals on environmental and public health. The number of identified endocrine disrupting chemicals is increasing, but biological endpoints, experimental design, and approaches for examining and assessing the impact of these chemicals are still debated. Although some workers consider endocrine disruption an "emerging science," I argue here that it is equally, a "merging science" developing in the tradition of integrative biology. Understanding the impact of endocrine disruptors on humans and wildlife is an examination of "context dependent development" and one that Scott Gilbert predicted would require a "new synthesis" or a "revolution" in the biological sciences. Here, I use atrazine as an example to demonstrate the importance of an integrative approach in understanding endocrine disruptors.Atrazine is a potent endocrine disruptor that chemically castrates and feminizes amphibians and other wildlife. These effects are the result of the induction of aromatase, the enzyme that converts androgens to estrogens, and this mechanism has been confirmed in all vertebrate classes examined (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans). To truly assess the impact of atrazine on amphibians in the wild, diverse fields of study including endocrinology, developmental biology, molecular biology, cellular biology, ecology, and evolutionary biology need to be invoked. To understand fully the long-term impacts on the environment, meteorology, geology, hydrology, chemistry, statistics, mathematics and other disciplines well outside of the biological sciences are required.     

Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment?

Purpose

The present paper aims to offer an explanation for the diversity of methodological approaches proposed up to the present for social life cycle assessment (sLCA), tracking down its roots in the cultural and scientific heritage of social sciences and especially management sciences. A second aim is to shift the current debate on methodologies to an epistemological level, presenting the first results of an ongoing critical review about which underlying paradigms have been applied in sLCA literature.

Methods

This paper moves from the hypothesis that the diversity of positions in philosophy of science and the “multiparadigmatic” character of social sciences have had repercussions on sLCA literature since its beginnings, probably in an unconscious manner. Therefore, a discriminating reflection on the scientific and disciplinary inheritance that can represent the roots of sLCA has been conducted. The philosophy of science and the role of different research paradigms in social sciences have been deepened to provide an overview of the main elements of a paradigm (in terms of ontology, epistemology, and methodology). Finally, a brief but critical review of 133 selected scientific contributions on sLCA has been conducted to highlight which paradigms have been applied in sLCA studies.

Results and discussion

Recognizing that boundaries between paradigms are subtle and that researchers are rarely conscious of which paradigm underpins their works, a distinction between the interpretivist and post-positivist approaches used by the studies has been carried out on the basis of a text analysis conducted by identifying the main “literal” criteria. From an initial population of 209 studies, we excluded those concerning reviews of sLCA literature and those with selected criteria that were insufficient to catch the epistemological viewpoint of the authors. Among the remaining papers (133), 73 % has been ascribed to the group of interpretivism-oriented paradigms and only 24 % could be ascribed to the post-positivist one; the remaining 3 % is represented by studies with both characteristics. This data deserves some attention because, since the beginnings of sLCA methodologies, most sLCA publications explicitly suggest having the same underlying perspectives as environmental life cycle assessment (eLCA).

Conclusions

In light of the reflections carried out, we argue that it is important, before going into methodological questioning issues, to be aware of which paradigm is underlying. Indeed, in this phase of sLCA development, scholars should go beyond the simple methodological debate and recognize the “multilayered” nature of social phenomena and the multiparadigmatic characteristics of social and management sciences.

     

Order without design

Experimental reality in molecular and cell biology, as revealed by advanced research technologies and methods, is manifestly inconsistent with the design perspective on the cell, thus creating an apparent paradox: where do order and reproducibility in living systems come from if not from design?I suggest that the very idea of biological design (whether evolutionary or intelligent) is a misconception rooted in the time-honored and thus understandably precious error of interpreting living systems/organizations in terms of classical mechanics and equilibrium thermodynamics. This error, introduced by the founders and perpetuated due to institutionalization of science, is responsible for the majority of inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities plaguing modern sciences, including one of the most startling paradoxes - although almost everyone agrees that any living organization is an open nonequilibrium system of continuous energy/matter flow, almost everyone interprets and models living systems/organizations in terms of classical mechanics, equilibrium thermodynamics, and engineering, i.e., in terms and concepts that are fundamentally incompatible with the physics of life.The reinterpretation of biomolecules, cells, organisms, ecosystems, and societies in terms of open nonequilibrium organizations of energy/matter flow suggests that, in the domain of life, order and reproducibility do not come from design. Instead, they are natural and inevitable outcomes of self-organizing activities of evolutionary successful, and thus persistent, organizations co-evolving on multiple spatiotemporal scales as biomolecules, cells, organisms, ecosystems, and societies. The process of self-organization on all scales is driven by economic competition, obeys empirical laws of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and is facilitated and, thus, accelerated by memories of living experience persisting in the form of evolutionary successful living organizations and their constituents.     

Fostering Systems Thinking in Biological Education Using the Example of Plant Hormones

Systems thinking is an increasingly recognized paradigm in education in both natural and social sciences, a particular focus being, naturally, in biology. This article argues that plant biology, and in particular, plant hormonal signaling, provides highly illustrative models for learning and teaching in a systems paradigm, because it offers examples of highly complex networks, ranging from the molecular‐ to ecosystem‐scale, and in addition lends itself to the use of real‐life biological objects.