Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Representation-supporting model elements

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is assumed that scientific models contain no superfluous model elements in scientific representation. A representational model is constructed with all the model elements serving the representational purpose. The received view has it that there are no redundant model elements which are non-representational. Contrary to this received view, I argue that there exist some non-representational model elements which are essential in scientific representation. I call them representation-supporting model elements in virtue of the fact that they play the role to support the representational role of representational model elements. Representation-supporting model elements, which have a characteristic of dependability, are not to be eliminated in the process of modeling although they are playing second fiddle to representational model elements in scientific representation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I am aware of the non-representational scientific models such as constructive models (Tee 2018) and generative models (Fagan 2016; Peschard 2011). My focus in this paper is confined to models that play a representational role.

  2. I construe non-representationality (of a representation-supporting model element) in modeling as involving idealization/distortion of the relevant feature in the target system (e.g., the distortion of the number of effective atoms and the degrees of freedom in Levitt’s model as explained in “Representation-supporting model elements in abstract models” section below).

  3. The reason I borrow these attributes from software engineering is that the relation between a dependable software and a dependant software (i.e., a software that depends on other software for its functions) is somehow very similar to the relation between representation-supporting model elements and representational model elements. Both require the factors of availability, reliability, and recurrence in order for the dependant software and the representational model elements to function.

  4. Gelfert (2011) claims that one of the differences between mathematical expressions/formalisms and mathematical techniques is that the former is established in a global way without concerning much about the empirical details whereas the latter is applied to specific empirical contexts.

  5. See Strevens (2017) and Weisberg (2007) for a discussion on idealization.

  6. Similarly, Potochnik “argue[s] that idealizations themselves play a positive representational role” (2017, p. 50).

  7. Michael Levitt is a biophysicist and a structural biologist who has been awarded the Nobel Prize in 2013 for his contributions in the development of multi-scale models for complex chemical systems.

  8. In addition, the torsion angle α also supports the representation of the potential energy of the molecule. The derivatives of the energy are dependent on α in the equations. The dependability of the torsion angle α in supporting other representational model elements (such as the derivatives of the energy) implies that the latter are functionally dependent on the former, despite the former does not play the representational role in the representation. The representation-supporting model element (e.g., the torsion angle α) idealizes and foregrounds the relevant feature of the target system in facilitating the representational role of the representational model element (e.g., the derivatives of the energy).

  9. See Ramsey (2007) for a philosophical discussion on calibrating model elements for the model of protein folding. Besides, Robert Skipper thinks that biologists calibrate the representational model elements, not the representation-supporting model elements, when he states “laboratory models in population genetics are calibrated to parameters describing natural populations […]” (Skipper 2004, p. 370). Recently, Tal (2017) holds a similar view that model calibration is applicable only to the representational model element by adjusting it for a better fit with the target phenomenon.

  10. I do not think all material models comprise representation-supporting model elements. Only some do.

  11. The representation of the target phenomenon by a model organism may not always be straightforward. This representational relation is subject to constant reevaluation (see Huber and Keuck 2013).

  12. Hingorani et al. (2003) did not report the connection between ductal cells expansion and IL-6 primarily because IL-6 is not playing any role in representing pancreatic cancer in humans. IL-6 may involve in various physiological and pathological conditions which have nothing to do with pancreatic cancer.

  13. Manipulation of scientists plays an important role in determining whether a model element is representational or representation-supporting (nonrepresentational). Representation-supporting model elements such as IL-6 and Treg cells in my case study are nonrepresentational (in the way that they are playing the background role in foregrounding the specified aspects of the relevant feature of the target system, a role that assists/supports the representational model elements in the task of representing the disease) because the modelers do not aim to use them for representation—they do not manipulate them for the purpose of representation. However, IL-6 and Treg cells still participate in the representation of the disease in an indirect way via indirect molecular pathways that are running in the background of disease formation. The indirect involvement of IL-6 and Treg cells in the representation (by providing representational support) is inevitable because they are located in the relevant background molecular pathway leading to the disease. Notably, the activities of IL-6 and Treg cells are different in the mouse and the human patients—scientists manipulate the relevant molecular pathway to which IL-6 and Treg belong in order to create pancreatic cancer in an artificial way in the mouse model. Although there is similarity between the mouse pancreatic cancer and the human pancreatic cancer, the activities of IL-6 and Treg cells in the mouse are not similar to their counterparts in human patients. The pancreatic cancer in human is not formed by recruiting the IL-6 and Treg cells in the same ways as that of the manipulation of the mouse's molecular pathway to which IL-6 and Treg cells belong. I do not deny the possibility that the role of a representation-supporting model element and the role of a representational model element can be interchanged for a particular model element in the situation where the modeler changes his or her object of manipulation. This can be seen in many modeling tasks where the modelers intentionally manipulate IL-6 and Treg cells (as opposed to my case study) in their modeling activities, with adjustment of their position in the relevant molecular pathway by silencing or inhibiting specified model elements. Such an adjustment brings IL-6 and Treg cells from the upstream position to the downstream position in the cancer-linked molecular pathway. The presence of these model elements at the downstream position has a causative effect on cancer formation, rather than an indirect effect in supporting cancer formation. In those cases, IL-6 and Treg cells will be no longer a representation-supporting model element but a representational model element.

  14. Although I have argued above (see footnote 13) that manipulation of scientists plays an important role in determining whether a model element is representational or representation-supporting (nonrepresentational), the presence of a model element at the location of a molecular pathway (i.e., upstream or downstream) may also determine whether it is a representational or representation-supporting model element. IL-6 and Treg cells as nonrepresentational model elements are representation-supporting because they are depended by other representational model elements (such as the relevant cells and cytokines which play the representational role) in representing human cancer. This dependability is manifested in the molecular pathway (which is causal in nature) in which both IL-6/Treg cells and the representational model elements are taking part. Because IL-6 and Treg cells take part at the upstream of the relevant molecular pathway which is leading to cancer formation, their presence in this molecular pathway of cancer formation is vital for the recruitment of the downstream cells and cytokines which are the direct causative factors that lead to cancer formation. The presence of the downstream cells and cytokines is regarded as the biomarkers of cancer formation, therefore these model components are representational. IL-6 and Treg cells, which are at the upstream of the molecular pathway, are not regarded as the biomarkers that may be used to indicate the formation of cancer. Their presence does not represent cancer formation (because they are also prevalent in other normal physiological pathways which are not leading to cancer formation) but is important to engage in the recruitment of the downstream cells and cytokines—the recruitment of which may lead to cancer formation. Such an engagement in recruiting the downstream model elements is a representation-supporting role.

  15. I thank an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments.

  16. The mere fact that both IL-6 and Treg cells are present in mice and humans does not mean that mouse IL-6 and Treg cells could represent their counterparts in humans. The reason is that IL6/Treg cells in the mouse behave differently in the formation of cancer as compared to the activities of IL6/Treg in human cancer. The fact that an element can be found in both a model and a target does not imply that that model element is representational or similar to the element in the target. In order for a model element to be representational, it must behave in the same way as its target element does. We cannot say that a model element is representational if its activities are different from that of the target element. To illustrate, we cannot say that mouse neurons represent (i.e., similar to) the human neurons if they are manipulated in such a way that their activities are no longer similar to that of the human neurons. Similarity must be preserved in a representational relationship between model elements and target elements; similarity must also be established within a context (e.g., general contexts such as pathological, physiological, etc.; specific contexts such as pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, etc.), as Nelson Goodman holds that anything is similar to anything else in some respects.

  17. Cf. Piotrowska (2013), who argues that the mechanistic approach to generalization from model organisms to target species has its limit.

  18. I have argued in this paper that idealization could play a representation-supporting role in scientific representation. However, some philosophers have argued that idealization could facilitate explanation by playing a representational role (e.g., Bokulich 2012; Winsberg 2010), while others claim that idealization is nonrepresentational and functions to remove the irrelevant details of the target system (See my discussion in “Representation-supporting model elements in abstract models” section). The difference between my stance and the nonrepresentational view of the latter group is that I do not think that idealization can only play the role of removing the irrelevant details; rather, I claim that idealization which plays the representation-supporting role in scientific representation may foreground the relevant features of the target system by distorting them. It is interesting to discuss further, in a future paper, the interplay between these different types of idealized model elements in different types of scientific representation.

References

  • Ankeny RA (2001) Model organisms as models: understanding the ‘Lingua Franca’ of the Human Genome Project. Philos Sci 68(3):S251–S261

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankeny RA, Leonelli S (2011) What’s so special about model organisms? Stud Hist Philos Sci 42:313–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Avizienis A, Laprie J-C, Randell B, Landwehr C (2004) Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans Depend Secure Comput 1(1):11–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Baetu TM (2014) Models and the mosaic of scientific knowledge. The case of immunology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 45:49–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker A (2005) Are there genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena? Mind 114:223–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker A (2009) Mathematical explanation in science. Brit J Philos Sci 60(3):611–633

    Google Scholar 

  • Batterman RW (2009) Idealization and modeling. Synthese 169:427–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Batterman RW (2010) On the explanatory role of mathematics in empirical science. Brit J Philos Sci 61:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard F, Duplomb L, Baud’huin M, Brounais B (2009) The dual role of IL-6-type cytokines on bone remodeling and bone tumors. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 20:19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich A (2011) How scientific models can explain. Synthese 180:33–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich A (2012) Distinguishing explanatory from nonexplanatory fictions. Philos Sci 79:725–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich A (2016) Fiction as a vehicle for truth: moving beyond the ontic conception. Monist 99:260–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich A, Oreskes N (2017) Models in geosciences. In: Magnani L, Bertolotti T (eds) Springer handbook of model-based science. Springer, Berlin, pp 891–911

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolker JA (1995) Model systems in developmental biology. Bioessays 17(5):451–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkoff NS, Várnai C, Wells SA, Wild DL (2012) Exploring the energy landscapes of protein folding simulations with Bayesian computation. Biophys J 102(4):878–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (1989) Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Casini L (2016) How to model mechanistic hierarchies. Philos Sci 83(5):946–958

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y-Y, Ma Z-B, Xu H-Y, Shi L-J, Li D-Y, Sun L-Y, Yin X-H, Sang G-Y, Xu D, Tang Y-H, Wang X, Li P, Wu F, Zhou J (2015) IL-6/STAT3/SOCS3 signaling pathway playing a regulatory role in ulcerative colitis carcinogenesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(8):12009–12017

    Google Scholar 

  • Clementi C (2008) Coarse-grained models of protein folding: toy models or predictive tools? Curr Opin Struct Biol 18:10–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Colyvan M (2001) The indispensability of mathematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Colyvan M (2014) The undeniable effectiveness of mathematics in the special sciences. In: Galavotti MC, Dieks D, Gonzalez WJ, Hartmann S, Uebel T, Weber M (eds) New directions in the philosophy of science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bianchi S (2016) Which explanatory role for mathematics in scientific models? Reply to “the explanatory dispensability of idealizations”. Synthese 193(2):387–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill KA, Ozkan SB, Weikl TR, Chodera JD, Voelz VA (2007) The protein folding problem: when will it be solved? Curr Opin Struct Biol 17:342–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Donath MY, Shoelson SE (2011) Type 2 diabetes as an inflammatory disease. Nat Rev Immunol 11:98–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgin CZ (2017) Exemplification in understanding. In: Grimm SR, Baumberger C, Ammon S (eds) Explaining understanding: new perspectives from epistemology and philosophy of science. Routledge, New York, pp 76–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgin M, Sober E (2002) Cartwright on explanation and idealization. Erkenntnis 57:441–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan MB (2016) Generative models: human embryonic stem cells and multiple modeling relations. Stud Hist Philos Sci 56:122–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Febbraio MA (2014) Role of interleukins in obesity: implications for metabolic disease. Trends Endocrinol Metab 25(6):312–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Fedyukina DV, Cavagnero S (2011) Protein folding at the exit tunnel. Annu Rev Biophys 40:337–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Garbers C, Aparicio-Siegmund S, Rose-John S (2015) The IL-6/gp130/STAT3 signaling axis: recent advances towards specific inhibition. Curr Opin Immunol 34:75–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfert A (2011) Mathematical formalisms in scientific practice: from denotation to model-based representation. Stud Hist Philos Sci 42:272–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu J, Li H, Jiang H, Wang X (2009) Optimizing energy potential for protein fold recognition with parametric evaluation function. J Comput Biol 16(3):427–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty RA (2018) Much ado about mice: standard-setting in model organism research. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 68–69:15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Hingorani SR, Petricoin EF, Maitra A, Rajapakse V, King C, Jacobetz MA, Ross S, Conrads TP et al (2003) Preinvasive and invasive ductal pancreatic cancer and its early detection in the mouse. Cancer Cell 4(6):437–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock N, Chan MH, Bisucci T, Darby IA, Febbraio MA (2004) Skeletal myocytes are a source of interleukin-6 mRNA expression and protein release during contraction: evidence of fiber type specificity. FASEB J 18:992–994

    Google Scholar 

  • Hruban RH, Maitra A, Goggins M (2008) Update on pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 1(4):306–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber L, Keuck LK (2013) Mutant mice: experimental organisms as materialised models in biomedicine. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44:385–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Islami A (2017) A match not made in heaven: on the applicability of mathematics in physics. Synthese 194:4839–4861

    Google Scholar 

  • Janakiram NB, Mohammed A, Rao CV (2011) Role of lipoxins, resolvins, and other bioactive lipids in colon and pancreatic cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 30:507–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan DM, Craver CF (2011) The explanatory force of dynamical and mathematical models in neuroscience: a mechanistic perspective. Philos Sci 78:601–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Kishimoto T (2006) Interleukin-6: discovery of a pleiotropic cytokine. Arthritis Res Ther 8:S2

    Google Scholar 

  • Kmiecik S, Gront D, Kolinski M, Wieteska L, Dawid AE, Kolinski A (2016) Coarse-grained protein models and their applications. Chem Rev 116:7898–7936

    Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila T, Loettgers A (2017) Modelling as indirect representation? The Lotka–Volterra model revisited. Brit J Philos Sci 68(4):1007–1036

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Khan SA, Khan RA (2015) Revisiting software security: durability perspective. Int J Hybrid Inf Technol 8(2):311–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange M (2013) What makes a scientific explanation distinctively mathematical? Brit J Philos Sci 64:485–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli S (2008) Performing abstraction: two ways of modelling Arabidopsis thaliana. Biol Philos 23:509–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesina M, Kurkowski MU, Ludes K, Rose-John S, Treiber M, Klöppel G, Yoshimura A, Reindl W, Sipos B, Akira S, Schmid RM, Algül H (2011) Stat3/Socs3 activation by IL-6 transsignaling promotes progression of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and development of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Cell 19(4):456–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt M (1976) A simplified representation of protein conformations for rapid simulation of protein folding. J Mol Biol 104:59–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt M, Greer J (1977) Automatic identification of secondary structure in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 114:181–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy A, Currie A (2015) Model organisms are not (theoretical) models. Brit J Philos Sci 66:327–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunardi S, Jamieson NB, Lim SY, Griffiths KL, Carvalho-Gaspar M, Al-Assar O, Yameen S, Carter RC, McKay CJ, Spoletini G, D’Ugo S, Silva MA, Sansom OJ, Janssen KP, Muschel RJ, Brunner TB (2014) IP-10/CXCL10 induction in human pancreatic cancer stroma influences lymphocytes recruitment and correlates with poor survival. Oncotarget 5(22):11064–11080

    Google Scholar 

  • Luque VJ (2017) One equation to rule them all: a philosophical analysis of the Price equation. Biol Philos 32:97–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills LD, Zhang Y, Marler RJ, Herreros-Villanueva M, Zhang L, Almada LL, Couch F, Wetmore C, Pasca di Magliano M, Fernandez-Zapico ME (2013) Loss of the transcription factor GLI1 identifies a signaling network in the tumor microenvironment mediating KRAS oncogene-induced transformation. J Biol Chem 288(17):11786–11794

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell PS, Sandstrom A, Vance RE (2019) The NLRP1 inflammasome: new mechanistic insights and unresolved mysteries. Curr Opin Immunol 60:37–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M (2015) Reconstructing reality: models, mathematics, and simulations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee A, Siewiorek DP (1997) Measuring software dependability by robustness benchmarking. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 23(6):366–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishikawa H, Sakaguchi S (2014) Regulatory T cells in cancer immunotherapy. Curr Opin Immunol 27:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohashi K, Shibata R, Murohara T, Ouchi N (2014) Role of anti-inflammatory adipokines in obesity-related diseases. Trends Endocrinol Metab 25(7):348–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschard I (2011) Making sense of modeling: beyond representation. Eur J Philos Sci 1(3):335–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Pincock C (2007) A role for mathematics in the physical sciences. Nous 41(2):253–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Pincock C (2012) Mathematics and scientific representation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Piotrowska M (2013) From humanized mice to human disease: guiding extrapolation from model to target. Biol Philos 28:439–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Potochnik A (2017) Idealization and the aims of science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior IA, Lewis PD, Mattos C (2012) A comprehensive survey of Ras mutations in cancer. Cancer Res 72(10):2457–2467

    Google Scholar 

  • Rader KA (2004) Making mice: standardizing animals for American biomedical research, 1900–1955. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey JL (2007) Calibrating and constructing models of protein folding. Synthese 155:307–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice C (2017) Idealized models, holistic distortions, and universality. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1357-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruwanpura SM, McLeod L, Brooks GD, Bozinovski S, Vlahos R, Longano A, Bardin PG, Anderson GP, Jenkins BJ (2014) IL-6/Stat3-driven pulmonary inflammation, but not emphysema, is dependent on interleukin-17A in mice. Respirology 19(3):419–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Shevchenko I, Karakhanova S, Soltek S, Link J, Bayry J, Werner J, Umansky V, Bazhin AV (2013) Low-dose gemcitabine depletes regulatory T cells and improves survival in the orthotopic Panc02 model of pancreatic cancer. Int J Cancer 133(1):98–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman AM, Nakata R, Shimada H, Sposto R, DeClerck YA (2012) A galectin-3-dependent pathway upregulates interleukin-6 in the microenvironment of human neuroblastoma. Can Res 72(9):2228–2238

    Google Scholar 

  • Skipper RA (2004) Calibration of laboratory models in population genetics. Perspect Sci 12(4):369–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Street TO, Barrick D (2009) Predicting repeat protein folding kinetics from an experimentally determined folding energy landscape. Protein Sci 18(1):58–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Strevens M (2017) The structure of asymptotic idealization. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1646-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strimpakos A, Saif MW, Syrigos KN (2008) Pancreatic cancer: from molecular pathogenesis to targeted therapy. Cancer Metastasis Rev 27(3):495–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadokoro T, Wang Y, Barak LS, Bai Y, Randell SH, Hogan BL (2014) IL-6/STAT3 promotes regeneration of airway ciliated cells from basal stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(35):E3641–E3649

    Google Scholar 

  • Tal E (2017) Calibration: modelling the measurement process. Stud Hist Philos Sci 65–66:33–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka T, Narazaki M, Kishimoto T (2012) Therapeutic targeting of the interleukin-6 receptor. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 52:199–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Tee S-H (2018) Constructing reality with models. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1673-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend SE, Haydon DT, Matthews L (2010) On the generality of stability-complexity relationships in Lotka–Volterra ecosystems. J Theor Biol 267:243–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Tozzini V (2005) Coarse-grained models for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 15:144–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyedmers J, Mogk A, Bukau B (2010) Cellular strategies for controlling protein aggregation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11:777–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignali DA, Collison LW, Workman CJ (2008) How regulatory T cells work. Nat Rev Immunol 8:523–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Wayne A (2011) Expanding the scope of explanatory idealization. Philos Sci 78:830–841

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (2005) Philosophy of experimental biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (2014) Experimental modeling in biology: in vivo representation and stand-ins as modeling strategies. Philos Sci 81(5):756–769

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg M (2007) Three kinds of idealization. J Philos 104(12):639–659

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg M (2013) Simulation and similarity: using models to understand the world. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Westcott PM, Halliwill KD, To MD, Rashid M, Rust AG, Keane TM, Delrosario R, Jen KY, Gurley KE, Kemp CJ, Fredlund E, Quigley DA, Adams DJ, Balmain A (2015) The mutational landscapes of genetic and chemical models of Kras-driven lung cancer. Nature 517(7535):489–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside TL (2012) What are regulatory T cells (Treg) regulating in cancer and why? Semin Cancer Biol 22(4):327–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg E (2010) Science in the age of computer simulation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J (2000) Data, phenomena, and reliability. Philos Sci 67:S163–S179

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Xiamen University Malaysia, Jalan Sunsuria, Bandar Sunsuria, 43900, Sepang, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sim-Hui Tee

Authors
  1. Sim-Hui Tee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sim-Hui Tee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tee, SH. Representation-supporting model elements. Biol Philos 35, 25 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-9743-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-9743-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation