Suppr超能文献

体细胞突变理论还是组织场转化理论?致癌作用的两种主要理论是如何(人为地)变得不相容的。

SMT or TOFT? How the two main theories of carcinogenesis are made (artificially) incompatible.

作者信息

Bedessem Baptiste, Ruphy Stéphanie

机构信息

Laboratoire TIMC-IMAG/DyCTIM, UJF, CNRS UMR 5525, Grenoble, France,

出版信息

Acta Biotheor. 2015 Sep;63(3):257-67. doi: 10.1007/s10441-015-9252-1. Epub 2015 Apr 8.

Abstract

The building of a global model of carcinogenesis is one of modern biology's greatest challenges. The traditional somatic mutation theory (SMT) is now supplemented by a new approach, called the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT). According to TOFT, the original source of cancer is loss of tissue organization rather than genetic mutations. In this paper, we study the argumentative strategy used by the advocates of TOFT to impose their view. In particular, we criticize their claim of incompatibility used to justify the necessity to definitively reject SMT. First, we note that since it is difficult to build a non-ambiguous experimental demonstration of the superiority of TOFT, its partisans add epistemological and metaphysical arguments to the debate. This argumentative strategy allows them to defend the necessity of a paradigm shift, with TOFT superseding SMT. To do so, they introduce a notion of incompatibility, which they actually use as the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability. To justify this so-called incompatibility between the two theories of cancer, they move the debate to a metaphysical ground by assimilating the controversy to a fundamental opposition between reductionism and organicism. We show here that this argumentative strategy is specious, because it does not demonstrate clearly that TOFT is an organicist theory. Since it shares with SMT its vocabulary, its ontology and its methodology, it appears that a claim of incompatibility based on this metaphysical plan is not fully justified in the present state of the debate. We conclude that it is more cogent to argue that the two theories are compatible, both biologically and metaphysically. We propose to consider that TOFT and SMT describe two distinct and compatible causal pathways to carcinogenesis. This view is coherent with the existence of integrative approaches, and suggests that they have a higher epistemic value than the two theories taken separately.

摘要

构建癌症发生的全球模型是现代生物学面临的最大挑战之一。传统的体细胞突变理论(SMT)现在有了一种新的方法作为补充,即组织组织场理论(TOFT)。根据TOFT,癌症的最初来源是组织组织的丧失而非基因突变。在本文中,我们研究了TOFT的倡导者为推行其观点而采用的论证策略。特别是,我们批评了他们关于不相容性的主张,该主张被用来为彻底摒弃SMT的必要性辩护。首先,我们注意到,由于难以构建一个明确无误的实验来证明TOFT的优越性,其支持者在辩论中加入了认识论和形而上学的论据。这种论证策略使他们能够捍卫范式转变的必要性,即TOFT取代SMT。为此,他们引入了不相容性的概念,实际上将其用作库恩的不可通约性概念。为了证明这两种癌症理论之间所谓的不相容性,他们将辩论转移到形而上学的层面,将这场争议等同于还原论与有机论之间的根本对立。我们在此表明,这种论证策略是似是而非的,因为它没有清楚地表明TOFT是一种有机论理论。由于它与SMT共享词汇、本体论和方法论,基于这种形而上学层面的不相容性主张在当前的辩论状态下似乎并不完全合理。我们得出结论,认为这两种理论在生物学和形而上学上都是相容的,这种观点更有说服力。我们建议认为TOFT和SMT描述了癌症发生的两条不同但相容的因果途径。这种观点与综合方法的存在相一致,并表明它们比单独的两种理论具有更高的认知价值。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验