Katherine Valde (Boston University) - This talk examines the use of processual concepts in the context of carcinogenesis research. There has recently been an increased interest in the prospect of a process framework for biology, and much of the attention has been focused on whether a process ontology can describe the biological world more accurately than a substance or mechanistic ontology. Bertolaso and Dupr´e (2018) have even argued for a processual understanding of cancer as metaphysically superior to a substance-based understanding. Yet this recent process literature has failed to pay attention to the practical role philosophical frameworks play in guiding scientific expectations and thereby laying out a program of research. To fill this gap, I do not focus on the metaphysical accuracy (or lack thereof) of a process ontology, but instead I take a practice-oriented approach. I look to the specific scientific context of cancer in order to understand how adopting a process framework can advance the field; I argue for the importance of process on methodological (rather than metaphysical) grounds. A processual account characterizes entities in terms of how they are maintained or stabilized, and in general focuses on the generation of stability rather than facts about stability. A traditional mechanistic framework, on the other hand, looks at a system in terms of entities and activities – it looks to finitely characterize the properties of entities that allow them to execute particular actions. These abstract frameworks generate different expectations that guide different research programs. Most simply, a process framework calls on us to expect changes and explain stability, while a mechanistic framework does just the opposite, calling on us to expect stability and explain change. Competing theories in carcinogenesis research can be understood and processual or mechanistic respectively. The dominant theory for understanding cancer is somatic mutation theory (SMT). SMT holds that cancer is a cell-based disease that occurs when a single cell from some particular tissue mutates and begins dividing out of control. A competing theory of carcinogenesis, Tissue Organizational Field Theory (TOFT), holds that cancer is a tissue-based disease that occurs when relational constraints are changed. The primary difference between SMT and TOFT is the default expectations for the operation of the system. In SMT the expectation is for a system to stay unchanged and stable, cells are considered to be quiescent, and when an oncogenic driver mutation occurs it acts independently of context. However, the expectation under TOFT is that the system will undergo continual change akin to development, that in the absence of restriction cells will proliferate with variation and motility, and that carcinogenesis is context dependent. TOFT can be characterized as providing a processual understanding of carcinogenesis, while SMT provides a mechanistic account. While SMT and TOFT will guide different experiments, direct our attention towards the observation of different aspects of a system, and make theoretical commitments to different observables, they are not fundamentally incommensurable theories (Bedessem and Ruphy, 2015). Thus their metaphysical accuracy is not of supreme scientific importance. What is most important is how these expectations guide researchers towards more or less successful practices. While SMT has yielded some success, some researchers think TOFT is a more promising approach (Soto and Sonnenschein, 2005). The continued use of the default mechanistic framework (SMT) is likely to continue yielding similar results. Using a novel framework, that generates different expectations, will call upon scientists to generate novel methods. In the life-threatening context of cancer, the practical ability of a process framework to guide novel research, and thus the ability of TOFT to shift research expectations is of paramount importance. Given the difficulty in settling theoretical metaphysical debates, and the grave importance of advancing biomedical research generally, this pragmatic practice-centered approach to adopting a process framework offers a superior route forward.
