Deichmann Ute
Jacques Loeb Centre for the History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. B. 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2008;30(1):53-78.
The encounter between two fundamentally different approaches in seminal research in molecular biology--the problems, aims, methods and metaphysics--is delineated and analyzed. They are exemplified by the microbiologist Oswald T. Avery who, in line with the reductionist mechanistic metaphysics of Jacques Loeb, attempted to explain basic life phenomena through chemistry; and the theoretical physicist Max Delbrück who, influenced by Bohr's antimechanistic views, preferred to explain these phenomena without chemistry. Avery's and Delbrück's most important studies took place concurrently. Thus analysis of their contrasting approaches lends itself to examination of the Weltanschauungen view concerning the role of fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions in scientific change, that is, the view that empirical research cannot be neutral in regard to the worldviews of the researchers. This study shows that the initial ostensible disparity (non-integratibility) of the two approaches lasted for just a short time. Ironically it was a student of Delbrück's school, James Watson, who (with Crick) proposed a chemical model, the DNA double helix, as a solution to Delbrück's problem. The structure of DNA has not been seriously challenged over the past half century Moreover, Watson's and Crick's work did not call into question the validity of Delbrück's research, but opened it up to entirely new approaches. The case of Avery and Delbrück demonstrates that after initial obstacles were overcome the different fundamental attitudes and the resulting research practices were capable of integration.
本文阐述并分析了分子生物学开创性研究中两种截然不同的方法之间的碰撞——包括问题、目标、方法及形而上学层面。以微生物学家奥斯瓦尔德·T·艾弗里为例,他遵循雅克·洛布的还原论机械主义形而上学,试图通过化学来解释基本生命现象;而理论物理学家马克斯·德尔布吕克受玻尔反机械主义观点影响,倾向于在不涉及化学的情况下解释这些现象。艾弗里和德尔布吕克最重要的研究是同时进行的。因此,分析他们截然不同的方法有助于审视关于基本(形而上学)假设在科学变革中的作用的世界观,即认为实证研究不可能对研究者的世界观保持中立的观点。这项研究表明,这两种方法最初表面上的差异(不可兼容性)只持续了很短的时间。具有讽刺意味的是,正是德尔布吕克学派的一名学生詹姆斯·沃森(与克里克一起)提出了一个化学模型——DNA双螺旋结构,作为解决德尔布吕克问题的方案。在过去的半个世纪里,DNA的结构从未受到过严重挑战。此外,沃森和克里克的工作并没有质疑德尔布吕克研究的有效性,而是为其开辟了全新的研究途径。艾弗里和德尔布吕克的案例表明,在最初的障碍被克服之后,不同的基本态度以及由此产生的研究实践是能够融合的。