FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2146236475> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2146236475 endingPage "C537" @default.
• W2146236475 startingPage "C537" @default.
• W2146236475 abstract "LETTERS TO THE EDITOR*Reply to “Letter to the editor: ‘Systemic cell theory, protoplasmic theory, and their logic of explanation’”G. Rickey Welch, and James S. CleggG. Rickey WelchDepartment of Biological Sciences and Department of History, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; and , and James S. CleggBodega Marine Laboratory and Section of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, CaliforniaPublished Online:01 Aug 2010https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00159.2010MoreSectionsPDF (29 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations reply: We appreciate the interest expressed by Dr. Müller-Strahl in our article (2) for American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology (AJP-Cell). He raises concerns regarding our historiographical approach to the notions of “protoplasmic theory” and “cellular systems biology” that feature prominently in our treatise. We are a bit perplexed by the contention that “readers of the article are left alone to establish their own concepts of the theoretical backgrounds of systemic cell and protoplasmic theory.” Judging from Müller-Strahl's evocation that AJP-Cell should require “metatheoretical” historical studies which apply the methods of “an analytical history of science” and account for a “logical structure of explanation,” it would seem that he is proposing that AJP-Cell follow the modus operandi of a history (or philosophy) of science journal. It is beyond our purview to say whether or not AJP-Cell should follow this model for the design of its future historical articles. As the title of our article indicates, it is a “reflection” commentary submitted under the auspices of the journal's “historical perspectives” schema.Our historical approach is thematic, episodic, and saltatory. We do not, in fact, present “a harmonious evolution of atomistic physiology with a continuous progression of empirical knowledge which is integrated into a rather stable conceptual framework.” Quite the contrary, we discuss the controversies surrounding the key ideas, as they emerged and evolved. In particular, we take great care in the elaboration of the “protoplasmic theory”—both in its conceptual origination and in its historical implications. Müller-Strahl proposes that a dualistic “cell versus protoplasm” view constitutes the correct historical assessment of the 19th century. We could not agree more, and this is how we tried to depict that era. When the dualistic duel was over, the term “cell” lived on in the biological lexicon, and the word “protoplasm” died out. Müller-Strahl offers that “the search for mechanisms is one concept which collides neither with cell nor with protoplasmic theory.” We wholeheartedly concur. This is our closing point in the final paragraph of the article. It is physiology that ranks supreme.Müller-Strahl emphasizes the “quasi-crystalline” image in relation to cellular infrastructure. Many thinkers have embraced the idea. Indeed, this notable metaphor has a rich history in the annals of cell biology and biochemistry [see articles by D. J. Haraway (1) and G. R Welch (3)].Regarding Müller-Strahl's concern over a “systemic cell theory,” we would respond that the entire final section of our article is devoted to the seminal query: What is “cellular systems biology?” Every cell biologist today reckons that the cell is a “system,” though the meaning and implication of that term have (and, likely, always will be) subject to diverse interpretation. Far be it for us to attempt to define a unified “systemic cell theory” in our perspectives article. A critical point, which we raise in the last section, is that cell biologists today—faced with an overwhelming mass of “-omic” data hailed under the rubric of so-called “systems biology”—are, indeed, scratching their heads anew over what “system” signifies. With the “protoplasmic theory” (which is the first widespread attempt to address the “cellular systems” issue in the era of modern biology) coming to the fore 150 years ago, it seemed to us a propitious time to “reflect” on the thematic concepts then and now. Our hope is that such a reflection may give some bearing to today's “cellular systems biology.” For those readers interested in a more philosophically oriented “analytical history” based on a “logical structure of explanation,” we might refer them to the following article (4): Welch, GR, “Physiology, physiomics, and biophysics: a matter of words” (which is also cited in our perspectives article).We would like to thank Dr. Müller-Strahl for his engaging response and for his opinion that our article will “serve as a valuable starting point for further epistemological research pertaining to cell physiology.” We could not wish for more.DISCLOSURESNo conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.REFERENCES1. Haraway DJ. Crystals, Fabrics, and Fields: Metaphors of Organicism in Twentieth-Century Developmental Biology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976.Google Scholar2. Welch GR, Clegg JS. From protoplasmic theory to cellular system biology: a 150-year reflection. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 298: C1280–C1290, 2010.Link | ISI | Google Scholar3. Welch GR. An analogical “field” construct in cellular biophysics: history and present status. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 57: 71–128, 1992.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar4. Welch GR. Physiology, physiomics, and biophysics: a matter of words. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 100: 4–17, 2009.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: G. R. Welch, Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science, Univ. of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, UK (e-mail: [email protected]edu). Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Related ArticlesSystemic cell theory, protoplasmic theory, and their logic of explanation 01 Aug 2010American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology More from this issue > Volume 299Issue 2August 2010Pages C537-C537 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2010 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00159.2010History Published online 1 August 2010 Published in print 1 August 2010 Metrics" @default.
• W2146236475 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2146236475 creator A5001123355 @default.
• W2146236475 creator A5012038882 @default.
• W2146236475 date "2010-08-01" @default.
• W2146236475 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2146236475 title "Reply to “Letter to the editor: ‘Systemic cell theory, protoplasmic theory, and their logic of explanation’”" @default.
• W2146236475 cites W2006078983 @default.
• W2146236475 cites W2020303530 @default.
• W2146236475 cites W2139758276 @default.
• W2146236475 doi "https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00159.2010" @default.
• W2146236475 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2146236475 type Work @default.
• W2146236475 sameAs 2146236475 @default.
• W2146236475 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2146236475 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2146236475 hasAuthorship W2146236475A5001123355 @default.
• W2146236475 hasAuthorship W2146236475A5012038882 @default.
• W2146236475 hasBestOaLocation W21462364752 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C2780129039 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C29598333 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C111472728 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C111919701 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C138885662 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C15744967 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C17744445 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C188147891 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C199539241 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C2780129039 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C29598333 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C41008148 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C74916050 @default.
• W2146236475 hasConceptScore W2146236475C95457728 @default.
• W2146236475 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2146236475 hasLocation W21462364751 @default.
• W2146236475 hasLocation W21462364752 @default.
• W2146236475 hasOpenAccess W2146236475 @default.
• W2146236475 hasPrimaryLocation W21462364751 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W1987346758 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W1991316863 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W2070051673 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W2070720935 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W2132997838 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W2417060170 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W2594483827 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W2755678161 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W3209062011 @default.
• W2146236475 hasRelatedWork W622726430 @default.
• W2146236475 hasVolume "299" @default.
• W2146236475 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2146236475 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2146236475 magId "2146236475" @default.
• W2146236475 workType "article" @default.