I wonder, do readers know much about “Post Modern” biology? Radio Open Source contacted me about this topic…the thing is that I don’t usually pay much attention to the “overthrow” of the “orthodox” doctrine because I don’t think these “doctrines” are really adhered to in the same way that Marxism or Christianity are. Science is about change, falsification is a feature and not a bug! Myself, contravention of standard orthodoxy is cool, that means the low hanging fruit might still be around. Epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity seem to be well acknowledged phenomena which might be considered outside the conventional box if they weren’t widely accepted. Since biology is the science of flexible and fuzzy generalizations I am not usually surprised by rivers which flow uphill…it seems much of the “debate” lay in the realm of semantics and rhetoric than science. To me a large fraction of “controversy” in natural science is captured by an anecdote that Martin Gradner recounted about the relationship between Sir Karl Popper and Rudolf Carnap’s ideas in the philosophy of science, “the distance between him and Popper was not symmetrical. From Carnap to Popper it was small, but the other way around it appeared huge.”
Here the abstract of the precipitating article:

Recent insights regarding stem cells, repression and de-repression of gene expression, and the application of Complexity Theory to cell and molecular biology require a re-evaluation of many long-held dogmas regarding the nature of the human body in health and disease. Greater than expected cell plasticity, trafficking of cells between organs, ‘cellular uncertainty’, stochasticity of cell origins and fates, and a reconsideration of Cell Doctrine itself all logically follow from these observations and conceptual approaches. In this paper, these themes will be considered and some implications for the investigative pathologist will be explored.Laboratory Investigation advance online publication, 13 February 2006; doi:10.1038/labinvest.3700401.

I doubt the distance between the author and I is really that large. Regular readers know I’m a big fan of R.A. Fisher, he of the gas law analogy, but I don’t have big issues with the rise of evolutionary development biology, or the possibility that epigenetics might be a powerful force in biology. Life is a messy thing to create a science out of, and biology is an enormous territory. Some molecular biologists are probably tied to a tightly knitted heuristic around which their career has been based, but I haven’t talked to many of these. I would bet that most “deterministic” quotes from the “orthodox” school imply a lack of consideration of context because the quotes are taken out of context, or their proper frame. People don’t regularly expose their axioms in everyday conversation, and so confusion grows from the fertile soil of the perceived and assumed gaps between explicit assertions.
I do think we live in the era of Post Modern Biology, but I think we’ve always lived in the era of Post Modern Biology, insofar that science is implemented by humans, a species that is characterized by faction, self-interest and emotion. The filter through which we view the universe biases our perception of it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the universe dances to our beck and call. I suspect many controversies, whether between Selectionists vs. Neutralists or Bayesians vs. Frequentists, tell us more about the science of humanity than the science done by humans.

I have a post on Post Modern biology on my other weblog. I talked to David Miller of Radio Open Source about this topic on the phone. I basically told him using terms like “Post Modern” vs. “Modern” smacked to me more of marketing than substance. Of course, scientists have to eat and be famous too. I don’t know much about the “controversy” here…I’ve known about epigenetics for a long time, and it seems like a viable and important field. Biology is a domain of knowledge where generalizations hold as expectations, and rivers sometimes do flow uphill.

Many people who read this weblog are in the biosciences, what do you think? Here is the abstract which prompted Miller contacting me:

Recent insights regarding stem cells, repression and de-repression of gene expression, and the application of Complexity Theory to cell and molecular biology require a re-evaluation of many long-held dogmas regarding the nature of the human body in health and disease. Greater than expected cell plasticity, trafficking of cells between organs, ‘cellular uncertainty’, stochasticity of cell origins and fates, and a reconsideration of Cell Doctrine itself all logically follow from these observations and conceptual approaches. In this paper, these themes will be considered and some implications for the investigative pathologist will be explored.

First, is “stochasticity” news to anyone here? Population genetics is constructed on the null ground of stochasticity. I don’t think that terms like “Cell Doctrine” or “Central Dogma” have the same import for scientists that terms like doctrine or dogma have in the non-scientific domain (I have read that Francis Crick regretted the use of the term “dogma,” and wouldn’t have offered it if he was as cognizant of the nuances and assocations it evoked). To me, it is kind of like Richard Dawkins use of the term “selfish” in a genocentric paradigm, the word itself caused a great deal of confusion outside of evolution and genetics, and Dawkins had to devote several lectures in the late 1970s and early 1980s clearing up the semantic problems. I don’t think the science is becoming Post Modern, as that people continue to be Post Modern in how words can confuse rather than clear up.