Abstract
Following Hans-Jörg Rheinberger’s epistemological concept we show how a generic element of synthetic biology, the “biological switch”, can be integrated into an experimental system. Here synthetic biology is assumed to be a technoscience. Hence, the biological switch becomes a technoscientific research object. Consequently, the experimental system has to be analyzed in a technoscientific experimental setting, showing differences in comparison with the former. To work out the specific properties of the technoscientific experimental system, biological switching behavior (bistability) is compared with the scientific research object laser light in its classical setting. For the analyses, both the laser light and bistability, enabling a biological switch, are considered as epistemic things connected by the same theoretical concept of phase transitions. The so-called Schlögl model is used to model both biological switching behavior and induced emission of radiation and becomes an epistemic thing in itself. It becomes clear that the answer, whether one is dealing with the emission of laser light or with bistable switching behavior, is linked to the perspective taken. The technoscientific orientation towards applications and the development of basic scientific theories require different perspectives on one and the same epistemic thing, here also represented by the model. The research objects of synthetic biology as a technoscience thus also enter into the corresponding experimental systems as techno-epistemic objects. (Please note especially footnote 4 for an explanation and the differentiation of the used notions of “research object”, “knowledge object” or “object of knowledge”, “object of interest” and “epistemic thing” and “techno-epistemic object”. A clarification of the way how these notions are used is essential for further reading.) Their analysis leads to a more complete understanding of what constitutes synthetic biology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The three different representations given here are based on a publication by Jan C. Schmidt, see Schmidt (2012). Schmidt argues for principles of self-organization as a common denominator of the different approaches of explanation.
See particularly Rheinberger (2002).
Here we have to thank the anonymous reviewers claiming a clear terminology: As an umbrella term we are using “research object”. Research objects do not necessarily represent epistemic things (Rheinberger 1992; see also Kastenhofer 2013, 134), they can perform only some enabling function or provide assistance. We use this term in a rather general, unspecific manner. The epistemic thing represents the “object of discourse” (Rheinberger 2002, 15; original in German, all citations from this book are our translations) or the “thing, whom the efforts of knowledge” (Rheinberger 2002, 24) in a scientific experimental system pertains. Taken up one hint of one of the reviewers we are talking of a “techno-epistemic object” in regard of an epistemic thing in a technoscientific experimental system. The notion “technical object” holds for both, a stabilized epistemic thing and a stabilized techno-epistemic object. We avoid using “knowledge object” or “object of interest” but would classify these notions also as rather unspecific umbrella terms.
Again we have to thank one of the anonymous reviewers, addressing the question what a “technoscientific experimental system would be?”
The double meaning of the term “phase” should be pointed out here. On the one hand this characterizes a state, on the other hand the relationship of two wave trains to each other.
Just as a distinction must be made between different active laser media, various processes have also been designed for energy input for population inversion. In addition to optical pumping, other methods are also common.
See Haken (1970, 351) for details.
For a short biography (obituary) see Bausch et al. (2011).
Phase transitions are generally divided into different classes. Here a classification according to Paul Ehrenfest (Ehrenfest classification) is common. First-order phase transitions are characterized by a continuous transition, second-order phase transitions show jumps or discontinuities. Analytically, this behavior is shown by the continuity or discontinuity of the corresponding derivatives of the related functions. The Landau theory represents a more detailed description of the transitions.
Unlike a switch, bistability can only be interpreted as a technical quantity depending on the context.
It is worth noting that switching, flip-flop circuits and bistability in chemical molecules is a popular topic in artificial molecular machine research. See also the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2016 “for the design and synthesis of molecular machines”.
Again a remark regarding the terminology is necessary: The relationship techno-epistemic object–technoscientific object corresponds to epistemic thing–technical object. Hence the technoscientific object is interpreted as a stabilized techno-epistemic object (or simply technical object) able to becoming part of a technological setting.
It cannot be said at this point whether Haken was the first to make this connection. Fischer points out that Haken preferred to publish his works in German and was therefore less read. See Fischer (2010, 156).
Nelson et al. (2010, 40) anecdotally describe the naming process: Arthur Schwalow stated that the phenomenon observed was more of an oscillation than an amplification. This would have meant, however, that instead of “light amplification” we would have had to speak of “light oscillation by stimulated emission of radiation”. The acronym “LASER” would have become a “LOSER”, which did not particularly convince the participants. Nevertheless, the short story refers to inconsistencies in relation to the ontological character of the phenomenon.
References
Andrianantoandro, E., Basu, S., Karig, D. K., & Weiss, R. (2006). Synthetic biology: New engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Molecular Systems Biology,2(1), 1–14.
Bausch, R., Bessenrodt, R., Dohm, V., Janssen, H.-K., Schöll, E., & Stahl, A. (2011). Nachruf auf Friedrich Schlögl. Physik Journal,10(7), 46.
Bensaude-Vincent, B., Loeve, S., Nordmann, A., & Schwarz, A. (2011). Matters of interest: The objects of research in science and technoscience. Journal for General Philosophy of Science,42(2), 365–383.
Collins, R. J., Nelson, D. F., Schawlow, A. L., Bond, W., Garrett, C. G. B., & Kaiser, W. (1960). Coherence, narrowing, directionality, and relaxation oscillations in the light emission from ruby. Physical Review Letters,5(7), 303–305.
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften (acatach), & Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Eds.). (2009). Synthetische Biologie. Stellungnahme; Standpunkte. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
Drubin, D. A., Way, J. C., & Silver, P. A. (2007). Designing biological systems. Genes & Development,21(3), 242–254.
Endres, R. G. (2015). Bistability: Requirements on cell-volume, protein diffusion, and thermodynamics. PLOS ONE, 10(4), e0121681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121681.
Endy, D. (2005). Foundations for engineering biology. Nature,438(7067), 449–453.
ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration). (2007). Extreme genetic engineering: An introduction to synthetic biology. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/extreme-genetic-engineering-introduction-synthetic-biology.
European Commission. (2005). Synthetic biology. Report of a NEST high-level expert group EU 21796, Brüssel.
Falk, J., Mendler, M., & Drossel, B. (2017). A minimal model of burst-noise induced bifurcations. PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0176410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176410.
Feyerabend, P. (1999). Conquest of abundance. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Fischer, E. P. (2010). LASER. Eine deutsche Erfolgsgeschichte von Einstein bis heute. München: Siedler.
Gardner, T. S., Cantor, C. R., & Collins, J. J. (2000). Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature,403(6767), 339–342.
Goldbeter, A., & Koshland, D. E., Jr. (1981). An amplified sensitivity arising from covalent modification in biological systems. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences,78(11), 6840–6844.
Gramelsberger, G. (2013). The simulation approach in synthetic biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences,44(2), 150–157.
Haken, H. (1970). Laserlicht – Ein neues Beispiel für eine Phasenumwandlung? In: Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (Ed.), Festkörperprobleme X. Advances in Solid State Physics. Freudenstadt, 6. bis 11. April 1970 (pp. 351–365). Braunschweig: Vieweg und Sohn.
Huang, C.-Y. F., & Ferrell, J. E., Jr. (1996). Ultrasensitivity in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences,93(19), 10078–10083.
Jacob, F. (1988). Die innere Statue. Autobiografie des Genbiologen und Nobelpreisträgers. Zürich: Ammann.
Kastenhofer, K. (2013). Two sides of the same coin? The (techno)epistemic cultures of system and synthetic biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences,44(2), 130–140.
Krämer, S., Kogge, W., & Grube, G. (2016). Spur. Spurenlesen als Orientierungstechnik und Wissenskunst. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Levskaya, A., Chevalier, A. A., Tabor, J. J., Simpson, Z. B., Lavery, L. A., Levy, M., et al. (2005). Engineering Escherichia coli to see light. Nature,438(7067), 441–442.
Maiman, T. H. (1960). Stimulated optical radiation in ruby. Nature,187(4736), 493–494.
Morrison, M. (2015). Reconstructing reality. Models, mathematics, and simulations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, D. F., Collins, R. J., & Kaiser, W. (2010). Bell labs and the ruby laser. Physics Today,63(1), 40–45.
Nordmann, A. (2004). Was ist TechnoWissenschaft? – Zum Wandel der Wissenschaftskultur am Beispiel von Nanoforschung und Bionik. In T. Rossmann & C. Tropea (Eds.), Bionik: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse in Natur-, Ingenieur- und Geisteswissenschaften (pp. 209–218). Berlin: Springer.
Nordmann, A. (2014). Synthetic biology at the limits of science. In B. Giese, C. Pade, H. Wigger, & A. von Gleich (Eds.), Synthetic biology. Character and impact (pp. 31–58). Heidelberg: Springer.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1992). Experiment – Differenz – Schrift. Zur Geschichte epistemischer Dinge. Marburg an der Lahn: Basilisken-Presse.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2002). Experimentalsysteme und epistemische Dinge. Eine Geschichte der Proteinsynthese im Reagenzglas. Göttingen: Wallstein.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2007). Wie werden aus Spuren Daten, und wie verhalten sich Daten zu Fakten? Nach Feierabend. Züricher Jahrbuch für Wissensgeschichte,3, 117–125.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2009). Sichtbar Machen. Visualisierung in den Naturwissenschaften. In K. Sachs-Hornbach (Ed.), Bildtheorien: Anthropologische und kulturelle Grundlagen des Visualistic Turn (pp. 127–145). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2011). Infra-experimentality: From traces to data, from data to patterning facts. History of Science,49(3), 337–348.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2015). Über den Eigensinn epistemischer Dinge. In H. P. Hahn (Ed.), Vom Eigensinn der Dinge. Für eine neue Perspektive auf die Welt des Materiellen (pp. 147–162). Berlin: Neofilis.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2016). Spurenlesen im Experimentalsystem. In S. Krämer, W. Kogge, & G. Grube (Eds.), Spur. Spurenlesen als Orientierungstechnik und Wissenskunst (pp. 293–308). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Schlögl, F. (1972). Chemical reaction models for non-equilibrium phase transitions. Zeitschrift für Physik,253(2), 147–161.
Schmidt, J. C. (2012). Selbstorganisation als Kern der Synthetischen Biologie. Ein Beitrag zur “Prospektiven Technikfolgenabschätzung”. Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis,21(2), 29–35.
Schwarz, A., & Nordmann, A. (2010). The political economy of technoscience. In M. Carrier & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Science in the context of application. Boston Studies in the philosophy of science 274 (pp. 317–336). Dordrecht: Springer.
Stadtman, E. R., & Chock, P. B. (1977). Superiority of interconvertible enzyme cascades in metabolic regulation: Analysis of monocyclic systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,74(7), 2761–2765.
Tessy Consortium. (2008). Information leaflet: Synthetic biology in Europe. http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1245144155_tessy_final_report_d5_3.pdf.
Thomas, R. (1994). The role of feedback circuits: Positive feedback circuits are a necessary condition for positive real eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix. Berichte der Bundesgesellschaft für physikalische Chemie,98(9), 1148–1151.
Vellela, M., & Qian, H. (2009). Stochastic dynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics of a bistable chemical system: The Schlögl model revisited. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface,6(39), 925–940.
Wilhelm, T. (2009). The smallest chemical reaction system with bistability. BMC Systems Biology,3(1), Article 90. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-3-90.
Funding
Funding was provided by Hessisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst (DE), LOEWE CompuGene.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kohl, T., Falk, J. Knowledge Objects of Synthetic Biology: From Phase Transitions to the Biological Switch. J Gen Philos Sci 51, 1–17 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-019-09478-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-019-09478-2