Do concepts of individuality account for individuation practices in studies of host-parasite systems? A modeling account of biological individuality.

Nina Kranke
Author Information
  1. Nina Kranke: Chair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 76, 79104, Freiburg, Germany. nina.kranke@nature.uni-freiburg.de. ORCID

Abstract

In recent discussions, the widespread conviction that scientific individuation practices are governed by theories and concepts of biological individuality has been challenged, particularly by advocates of practice-based approaches. This discussion raises questions about the relationship between individuation practices and concepts of individuality. In this paper, I discuss four studies of host-parasite systems and analyze the respective individuation practices to see whether they correspond to established concepts of biological individuality. My analysis suggests that scientists individuate biological systems on different levels of organization and that the researchers' respective emphasis on one of the levels depends on the explanandum and research context as well as epistemic aims and purposes. It thus makes sense to use different concepts of individuality to account for different individuation practices. However, not all individuation practices are represented equally well by concepts of biological individuality. To account for this observation, I propose that concepts of individuality should be understood as abstracted, idealized, or simplified models that represent only certain aspects of scientific practice. A modeling account suggests a pluralistic view of concepts of biological individuality that not only allows the coexistence of different kinds of individuality (e.g., evolutionary individuality, immunological individuality, ecological individuality) but also of normative and descriptive concepts.

Keywords

References

  1. Dis Aquat Organ. 2004 May 5;59(2):141-50 [PMID: 15212281]
  2. Theor Med Bioeth. 2011 Feb;32(1):75-90 [PMID: 21140228]
  3. PLoS Biol. 2015 Dec 04;13(12):e1002311 [PMID: 26636661]
  4. Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2015 Feb;49:48-57 [PMID: 26109410]
  5. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008 Aug;32(5):723-35 [PMID: 18549407]
  6. Theory Biosci. 2017 Dec;136(3-4):89-98 [PMID: 27995440]
  7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Aug 18;112(33):10126-32 [PMID: 26039982]
  8. Hist Philos Life Sci. 2018 May 14;40(2):33 [PMID: 29761370]
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Oct 12;96(21):11904-9 [PMID: 10518549]
  10. mSystems. 2016 Mar 29;1(2): [PMID: 27822520]
  11. N Engl J Med. 2004 Aug 19;351(8):799-807 [PMID: 15317893]
  12. Clin Exp Immunol. 2010 Apr;160(1):70-9 [PMID: 20415854]
  13. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1996 Oct;6(5):618-23 [PMID: 8939719]
  14. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2012 Feb;42(1):5-15 [PMID: 22090147]
  15. EBioMedicine. 2016 Nov;13:46-54 [PMID: 27863931]
  16. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jun 20;114(25):6575-6580 [PMID: 28588142]
  17. Syst Biol. 2016 Nov;65(6):1120-1121 [PMID: 27892425]

Grants

  1. 281125614/GRK2220/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

MeSH Term

Host-Parasite Interactions
Individuality
Animals
Humans
Biological Evolution
Models, Biological

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0individualityconceptspracticesindividuationbiologicalaccountdifferentscientificstudieshost-parasitesystemsrespectivesuggestslevelswellmodelingHost���parasiterecentdiscussionswidespreadconvictiongovernedtheorieschallengedparticularlyadvocatespractice-basedapproachesdiscussionraisesquestionsrelationshippaperdiscussfouranalyzeseewhethercorrespondestablishedanalysisscientistsindividuateorganizationresearchers'emphasisonedependsexplanandumresearchcontextepistemicaimspurposesthusmakessenseuseHoweverrepresentedequallyobservationproposeunderstoodabstractedidealizedsimplifiedmodelsrepresentcertainaspectspracticepluralisticviewallowscoexistencekindsegevolutionaryimmunologicalecologicalalsonormativedescriptivesystems?BiologicalcoevolutioninteractionIndividuationModelsPluralism

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.