如何选择你的研究对象

Michael R. Dietrich , Rachel A. Ankeny , Nathan Crowe , Sara Green , Sabina Leonelli
{"title":"如何选择你的研究对象","authors":"Michael R. Dietrich ,&nbsp;Rachel A. Ankeny ,&nbsp;Nathan Crowe ,&nbsp;Sara Green ,&nbsp;Sabina Leonelli","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite August Krogh's famous admonition that a ‘convenient’ organism exists for every biological problem, we argue that appeals to ‘convenience’ are not sufficient to capture reasoning about organism choice. Instead, we offer a detailed analysis based on empirical data and philosophical arguments for a working set of twenty criteria that interact with each other in the highly contextualized judgements that biologists make about organism choice. We propose to think of these decisions as a form of ‘differential analysis’ where researchers weigh multiple criteria for organismal choice against each other, and often utilize multidimensional refinement processes to finalize their choices. The specific details of any one case make it difficult to draw generalizations or to abstract away from specific research situations. However, this analysis of criteria for organismal choice and how these are related in practice allows us to reflect more generally on what makes a particular organism useful or ‘good.’</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48557,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101227","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to choose your research organism\",\"authors\":\"Michael R. Dietrich ,&nbsp;Rachel A. Ankeny ,&nbsp;Nathan Crowe ,&nbsp;Sara Green ,&nbsp;Sabina Leonelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite August Krogh's famous admonition that a ‘convenient’ organism exists for every biological problem, we argue that appeals to ‘convenience’ are not sufficient to capture reasoning about organism choice. Instead, we offer a detailed analysis based on empirical data and philosophical arguments for a working set of twenty criteria that interact with each other in the highly contextualized judgements that biologists make about organism choice. We propose to think of these decisions as a form of ‘differential analysis’ where researchers weigh multiple criteria for organismal choice against each other, and often utilize multidimensional refinement processes to finalize their choices. The specific details of any one case make it difficult to draw generalizations or to abstract away from specific research situations. However, this analysis of criteria for organismal choice and how these are related in practice allows us to reflect more generally on what makes a particular organism useful or ‘good.’</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48557,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101227\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848619301165\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848619301165","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

尽管奥古斯特·克拉夫(August Krogh)提出了一个著名的警告,即每个生物学问题都存在一个“方便的”有机体,但我们认为,诉诸“方便”并不足以捕捉到关于有机体选择的推理。相反,我们提供了一个基于经验数据和哲学论证的详细分析,为20个标准的工作集,这些标准在生物学家对生物选择的高度情境化判断中相互作用。我们建议将这些决策视为“差异分析”的一种形式,研究人员在其中权衡有机选择的多个标准,并经常利用多维细化过程来最终确定他们的选择。任何一个案例的具体细节都很难概括或从具体的研究情况中抽象出来。然而,这种对生物选择标准的分析,以及这些标准在实践中是如何联系在一起的,使我们能够更普遍地反思是什么使一个特定的有机体有用或“好”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How to choose your research organism

Despite August Krogh's famous admonition that a ‘convenient’ organism exists for every biological problem, we argue that appeals to ‘convenience’ are not sufficient to capture reasoning about organism choice. Instead, we offer a detailed analysis based on empirical data and philosophical arguments for a working set of twenty criteria that interact with each other in the highly contextualized judgements that biologists make about organism choice. We propose to think of these decisions as a form of ‘differential analysis’ where researchers weigh multiple criteria for organismal choice against each other, and often utilize multidimensional refinement processes to finalize their choices. The specific details of any one case make it difficult to draw generalizations or to abstract away from specific research situations. However, this analysis of criteria for organismal choice and how these are related in practice allows us to reflect more generally on what makes a particular organism useful or ‘good.’

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences is devoted to historical, sociological, philosophical and ethical aspects of the life and environmental sciences, of the sciences of mind and behaviour, and of the medical and biomedical sciences and technologies. Contributions are from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions; we encourage both specialist articles, and articles combining historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches; and we favour works of interest to scientists and medics as well as to specialists in the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences.
期刊最新文献
A Ordem do Universo no Séc. XII: Harmonia e Epistemologia na Tradição Neoplatónica Postmodern Theory with Historical Intent Tales of Im/mobility A Conceptual Map for Twenty-First-Century Philosophy of History In Defence of a Humanistically Oriented Historiography
×
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