物种选择与模型使用:振兴人类发展研究

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 Q4 BIOLOGY Journal of the History of Biology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1007/s10739-024-09775-7
Nick Hopwood
{"title":"物种选择与模型使用:振兴人类发展研究","authors":"Nick Hopwood","doi":"10.1007/s10739-024-09775-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While model organisms have had many historians, this article places studies of humans, and particularly our development, in the politics of species choice. Human embryos, investigated directly rather than via animal surrogates, have gone through cycles of attention and neglect. In the past 60 years they moved from the sidelines to center stage. Research was resuscitated in anatomy, launched in reproductive biomedicine, molecular genetics, and stem-cell science, and made attractive in developmental biology. I explain this surge of interest in terms of rivalry with models and reliance on them. The greater involvement of medicine in human reproduction, especially through in vitro fertilization, gave access to fresh sources of material that fed critiques of extrapolation from mice and met demands for clinical relevance or \"translation.\" Yet much of the revival depended on models. Supply infrastructures and digital standards, including biobanks and virtual atlases, emulated community resources for model organisms. Novel culture, imaging, molecular, and postgenomic methods were perfected on less precious samples. Toing and froing from the mouse affirmed the necessity of the exemplary mammal and its insufficiency justified inquiries into humans. Another kind of model-organoids and embryo-like structures derived from stem cells-enabled experiments that encouraged the organization of a new field, human developmental biology. Research on humans has competed with and counted on models.</p>","PeriodicalId":51104,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Biology","volume":" ","pages":"231-279"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341657/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Species Choice and Model Use: Reviving Research on Human Development.\",\"authors\":\"Nick Hopwood\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10739-024-09775-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While model organisms have had many historians, this article places studies of humans, and particularly our development, in the politics of species choice. Human embryos, investigated directly rather than via animal surrogates, have gone through cycles of attention and neglect. In the past 60 years they moved from the sidelines to center stage. Research was resuscitated in anatomy, launched in reproductive biomedicine, molecular genetics, and stem-cell science, and made attractive in developmental biology. I explain this surge of interest in terms of rivalry with models and reliance on them. The greater involvement of medicine in human reproduction, especially through in vitro fertilization, gave access to fresh sources of material that fed critiques of extrapolation from mice and met demands for clinical relevance or \\\"translation.\\\" Yet much of the revival depended on models. Supply infrastructures and digital standards, including biobanks and virtual atlases, emulated community resources for model organisms. Novel culture, imaging, molecular, and postgenomic methods were perfected on less precious samples. Toing and froing from the mouse affirmed the necessity of the exemplary mammal and its insufficiency justified inquiries into humans. Another kind of model-organoids and embryo-like structures derived from stem cells-enabled experiments that encouraged the organization of a new field, human developmental biology. Research on humans has competed with and counted on models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of Biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"231-279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341657/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-024-09775-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of Biology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-024-09775-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然模式生物有许多历史学家,但这篇文章将人类研究,特别是人类的发展,置于物种选择的政治之中。人类胚胎是直接研究的对象,而不是通过动物代用品进行研究。在过去的 60 年中,人类胚胎从边缘走向中心舞台。解剖学的研究得以恢复,生殖生物医学、分子遗传学和干细胞科学的研究得以启动,发育生物学的研究更具吸引力。我从与模型的竞争和对模型的依赖来解释这种兴趣的激增。医学对人类生殖的更多参与,特别是通过体外受精,使我们获得了新的材料来源,这些材料满足了对小鼠外推的批评,并满足了临床相关性或 "转化 "的要求。然而,复兴在很大程度上依赖于模型。供应基础设施和数字标准,包括生物库和虚拟地图集,模仿了模式生物的社区资源。新的培养、成像、分子和后基因组方法在不太珍贵的样本上得到了完善。小鼠的趾高气扬证明了模范哺乳动物的必要性,而小鼠的不足则证明了对人类的研究是正确的。另一种模型--从干细胞中提取的类器官和类胚胎结构--使实验得以进行,从而促进了一个新领域--人类发育生物学--的形成。对人类的研究既与模型竞争,又依赖于模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Species Choice and Model Use: Reviving Research on Human Development.

While model organisms have had many historians, this article places studies of humans, and particularly our development, in the politics of species choice. Human embryos, investigated directly rather than via animal surrogates, have gone through cycles of attention and neglect. In the past 60 years they moved from the sidelines to center stage. Research was resuscitated in anatomy, launched in reproductive biomedicine, molecular genetics, and stem-cell science, and made attractive in developmental biology. I explain this surge of interest in terms of rivalry with models and reliance on them. The greater involvement of medicine in human reproduction, especially through in vitro fertilization, gave access to fresh sources of material that fed critiques of extrapolation from mice and met demands for clinical relevance or "translation." Yet much of the revival depended on models. Supply infrastructures and digital standards, including biobanks and virtual atlases, emulated community resources for model organisms. Novel culture, imaging, molecular, and postgenomic methods were perfected on less precious samples. Toing and froing from the mouse affirmed the necessity of the exemplary mammal and its insufficiency justified inquiries into humans. Another kind of model-organoids and embryo-like structures derived from stem cells-enabled experiments that encouraged the organization of a new field, human developmental biology. Research on humans has competed with and counted on models.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the History of Biology
Journal of the History of Biology 生物-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
29
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the History of Biology is devoted to the history of the life sciences, with additional interest and concern in philosophical and social issues confronting biology in its varying historical contexts. While all historical epochs are welcome, particular attention has been paid in recent years to developments during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. JHB is a recognized forum for scholarship on Darwin, but pieces that connect Darwinism with broader social and intellectual issues in the life sciences are especially encouraged. The journal serves both the working biologist who needs a full understanding of the historical and philosophical bases of the field and the historian of biology interested in following developments and making historiographical connections with the history of science.
期刊最新文献
Alfred Russel Wallace's Darwinian Opposition to Eugenics. A Biogeographical Debate at the Origins of Limnology in Switzerland and Italy: The Issue over Pelagic Fauna Between Pietro Pavesi and François-Alphonse Forel. Hey Hey We’re the Monkeys! An Essay Review of Gowan Dawson’s Monkey to Man "Pray Observe How Time Slips By:" Collaborators, Assistants, and the Background Dynamics in the Publication of Darwin's Cirripedia Project. "The Logic of Monsters:" Pere Alberch and the Evolutionary Significance of Experimental Teratology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1