Katherine Valde (Boston University)
This poster will contrast the expectations generated by using mechanistic vs. process frameworks in biomedical sciences. A traditional mechanistic framework 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. A processual account, on the other hand, 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. Recent increased interest in a process framework for biology has focused on the ability of a process ontology to describe the natural world more accurately than a substance ontology. This poster examines the use of processual concepts in a practice-oriented approach- arguing for the importance of process on methodological (rather than metaphysical) grounds. Given the difficulty in settling theoretical metaphysical debates, and the grave importance of advancing biomedical research, this pragmatic approach offers a promising route forward for a process framework.
This poster specifically examines two concrete cases: carcinogenesis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research. Competing research programs in each of these domains can be understood as processual or mechanistic. The dominant theory for understanding carcinogenesis 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 growing and 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 (Soto and Sonnenschein, 2005). TOFT provides a processual understanding of carcinogenesis, while SMT provides a mechanistic account. IBD research in humans has largely focused on genetic correlations and pathogen discovery, which have largely been unsuccessful. However, in a mouse models researchers have discovered several factors, each necessary, but individually insufficient, to cause the overall condition (Cadwell, et. al., 2010). While the traditional research takes a mechanistic approach, the mouse model takes a processual approach (characterizing IBD based on how it is maintained, rather than based on essential properties).
The competing approaches to these conditions are not truly incommensurable, but they do generate different expectations and guide different research. This poster will compare the development of research projects under competing theories. The ultimate aim is to highlight the benefits of a process framework for the practice of biomedical science: generating different expectations for research, and thus leading to different experimental designs, and a capacity to measure different things regardless of the answers to the ultimate metaphysical questions.
