Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The creative industry of integrative systems biology

  • Published:
Mind & Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrative systems biology (ISB) is among the most innovative fields of contemporary science, bringing together scientists from a range of diverse backgrounds and disciplines to tackle biological complexity through computational and mathematical modeling. The result is a plethora of problem-solving techniques, theoretical perspectives, lab-structures and organizations, and identity labels that have made it difficult for commentators to pin down precisely what systems biology is, philosophically or sociologically. In this paper, through the ethnographic investigation of two ISB laboratories, we explore the particular structural features of ISB thinking and organization and its relations to other disciplines that necessitate cognitive innovation at all levels from lab PI’s to individual researchers. We find that systems biologists face numerous constraints that make the production of models far from straight-forward, while at the same time they inhabit largely unstructured task environments in comparison to other fields. We refer to these environments as adaptive problem spaces. These environments they handle by relying substantially on the flexibility and affordances of model-based reasoning to integrate these various constraints and find novel adaptive solutions. Ultimately what is driving this innovation is a determination to construct new cognitive niches in the form of functional model building frameworks that integrate systems biology within the biological sciences. The result is an industry of diverse and different innovative practices and solutions to the problem of modeling complex, large-scale biological systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our interdisciplinary research group comprises Ph.D. level researchers with expertise in ethnography, qualitative methods, linguistics, psychology, philosophy and history of science, cognitive science, and learning sciences. Student researchers (graduate and undergraduate) have come from programs in cognitive science, intelligent systems, human-centered computing, and public policy. All members of the team received apprenticeship training in ethnography, qualitative methods, and cognitive-historical analysis.

References

  • Bruggeman FJ, Westerhoff HV (2007) The nature of systems biology. Trends Microbiol 15(1):45–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruggeman F, Kolodkin A, Rybakova K, MonÉ M, Westerhoff H (2010) Systems biology: towards realistic and useful models of molecular networks. Nucl Recept 8:439–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert J (2010) Systems biology, interdisciplinarity and disciplinary identity. Collaboration in the New Life Sciences, Aldershot, Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert J, Fujimura JH (2011) Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42(2):155–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekharan S, Nersessian NJ (2011) Building cognition: the construction of external representations for discovery. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society

  • Clark A (2008) Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitano H (2002) Looking beyond the details: a rise in system-oriented approaches in genetics and molecular biology. Curr Genet 41(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohs U, Callebaut W (2007) Data without models merging with models without data. In: Boogerd FC, Bruggeman FJ, Hofmeyer J-HS, Westerhoff HV (eds) Systems biology: philosophical foundations. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 181–213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian NJ (1995) Opening the black box: cognitive science and history of science. Osiris 10:194–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian NJ (2008) Creating scientific concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Nersessian NJ, Newstetter WC (eds) (2013) Interdisciplinarity in engineering (vol. forthcoming). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley MA, Dupré J (2005) Fundamental issues in systems biology. BioEssays 27(12):1270–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley MA, Calvert J, Dupré J (2007) The study of socioethical issues in systems biology. Am J Bioeth 7(4):67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrager J (2007) The evolution of BioBike: community adaptation of a biocomputing platform. Stud Hist Philos Sci A 38(4):642–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorribas A, Savageau MA (1989) Strategies for representing metabolic pathways within biochemical systems theory: reversible pathways. Math Biosci 94(2):239–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Voit EO (2000) Computational analysis of biochemical systems: a practical guide for biochemists and molecular biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Voit E, Qui Z, Kikuchi S (2012) Mesoscopic models of neurotransmission as intermediates between disease simulators and tools for discovering design principles. Pharmacopsychiatry 45(1):22

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RA, Clark A (2009) How to situate cognition: letting nature take its course, The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition, pp 55–77

Download references

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the support of the US National Science Foundation in conducting this research (DRL097394084). We thank the directors and members of the research labs in our investigation for welcoming us into their labs and granting us numerous interviews. We thank the members of our research group for contributing valuable insights, especially Lisa Osbeck, Sanjay Chandrasekharan, and Wendy Newstetter. We appreciate the comments of three anonymous reviewers and the editors of this special issue for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0280, USA

    Miles MacLeod & Nancy J. Nersessian

Authors
  1. Miles MacLeod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy J. Nersessian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy J. Nersessian.

Additional information

In the paper we are deliberately playing off of two senses of ‘industry’ one being a manufacturing activity, the other, systematic work towards a purpose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacLeod, M., Nersessian, N.J. The creative industry of integrative systems biology. Mind Soc 12, 35–48 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-013-0119-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-013-0119-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation