Rowbottom Darrell P
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, 10 Merton Street, Oxford OX1 4JJ, United Kingdom.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2011 Jun;42(2):145-54. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021. Epub 2011 Feb 5.
This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too coarse-grained, approximate and/or idealized to serve a useful scientific purpose to the latter; and (2) the latter have a rather narrower view of what counts as an experiment, particularly when it comes to computer simulations, than the former. It argues that these findings are related; that computer simulations are considered to be undeserving of experimental status, by molecular biologists, precisely because of the idealizations and approximations that they involve. The complexity of biological systems is a key factor. The paper concludes by critically examining whether the new research programme of 'systems biology' offers a genuine alternative to the modelling strategies used by physicists. It argues that it does not.
本文基于利兹大学、爱丁堡大学和布里斯托大学近期的实证研究，提出了凝聚态物理学家与分子生物学家互动时出现的两个难题：（1）前者使用的模型似乎过于粗粒化、近似化和/或理想化，对后者而言无法服务于有用的科学目的；（2）后者对何为实验的看法比前者更为狭隘，尤其是在涉及计算机模拟时。文章认为这些发现是相关联的；分子生物学家认为计算机模拟不值得拥有实验地位，恰恰是因为它们所涉及的理想化和近似化。生物系统的复杂性是一个关键因素。本文通过批判性地审视“系统生物学”的新研究计划是否为物理学家所采用的建模策略提供了真正的替代方案来得出结论。文章认为它并没有。
