Reductionism seeks to explain the wide variety of natural phenomena on the basis of the behavior of a limited number of simpler constituents that are subject to rigorous and simple laws.
This approach is the basis of much biomedical research today; however, it is extremely difficult to reproduce reductionistic research on a whole system. A whole system is nonreductionistic and nonlinear by nature . Contrary to the belief of Rene Descartes, biologic systems cannot be understood by means of reduction .
Organisms or any other biological systems defined by evolution are essentially complex physicochemical systems. They consist of numerous dynamic networks of biochemical reactions and signaling interactions between active cellular components. This cellular complexity has made it difficult to build a complete understanding of cellular machinery to achieve a specific purpose
I think such an approach is the only way to experiment and understand something until the X-men arrive. We can stare at the ocean/maximum make some observations or collect a bucket full and analyze/experiment in the laboratory!!!!
Is this a rhetorical question?
Systems Biology is in its infancy. In my opinion, we cannot expect too much of this new field for a while. As I am told from time to time: "it's complicated". And our brains may not be the direct tool to comprehend the "chaos" of the system. But machines may have the ability to do so.
We are still learning about all the components, all the genes. Every year we discover something that we have overlooked before: nice examples: microRNAs, circular RNAs. Is it possible to get away from the reductionist approach as long as we are still struggling to get the components right?
Is is amazing what we do not know, or not care to know. For example, there are so many species on this planet, we have not characterized, may never have the opportunity to characterize or will not care to do so.
So, "when" will you switch to a systems biology approach: once we have collected enough data, have people from both worlds (the biology side and the bioinformatics side), have algorithms and hardware in place to process these data, and the interest and money to understand the mechanisms that build cells, tissues, organisms and ecosystems.
Dear Mesut, thank you very much for your question. I find it socially and culturally pertinent.
Please allow my own take, thus: If a happen to have an accident or a serious disease I prefer to go to a hospital. And once I am treated well and back to my regular life, I can and prefer to take alternative medicine, i.e. non-reductionist one.
Yet, I would distinguish medicine and biology. Medicine, as we know it, is a matter of practitioners. Biology, on the contrary, is a matter of science and research. I take up your question but I would split the considerations in each case.
The human being has a very complex world that embeds his/her senses. He/she, in order to survive, must make sense such world with models that simplifies such experience in a simpler mental construct. Such models are an oversimplified view of a very complex world.
Schizophrenic people have lost such ability to make such models, therefore they are overwhelm with such sensory inputs.
Biology is a set of oversimplified models that make sense the physics and chemistry of living things. Medicine is a practice to restore damages that impairs the functions of human beings.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology