Download Reply to “Letter to the editor: `Systemic cell theory, protoplasmic

Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 299: C537, 2010;
doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00159.2010.
Letter To The Editor
Reply to “Letter to the editor: ‘Systemic cell theory, protoplasmic theory, and
their logic of explanation’”
G. Rickey Welch1 and James S. Clegg2
1
Department of Biological Sciences and Department of History, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; and 2Bodega
Marine Laboratory and Section of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, California
REPLY:
Address 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]).
http://www.ajpcell.org
braced 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.
DISCLOSURES
No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.
REFERENCES
1. Haraway DJ. Crystals, Fabrics, and Fields: Metaphors of Organicism in
Twentieth-Century Developmental Biology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976.
2. Welch GR, Clegg JS. From protoplasmic theory to cellular system biology:
a 150-year reflection. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 298: C1280 –C1290, 2010.
3. Welch GR. An analogical “field” construct in cellular biophysics: history
and present status. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 57: 71–128, 1992.
4. Welch GR. Physiology, physiomics, and biophysics: a matter of words.
Prog Biophys Mol Biol 100: 4 –17, 2009.
0363-6143/10 Copyright © 2010 the American Physiological Society
C537
Downloaded from http://ajpcell.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.3 on June 16, 2017
We appreciate the interest expressed by Dr. MüllerStrahl in our article (2) for American Journal of PhysiologyCell 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 em-