Sabina Leonelli

Many biologists appeal to the so-called Krogh principle when justifying their choice of experimental organisms. The principle states that “for a large number of problems there will be some animal of choice, or a few such animals, on which it can be most conveniently studied”. Despite its popularity, the principle is often critiqued for implying unwarranted generalizations from optimal models. We argue that the Krogh principle should be interpreted in relation to the historical and scientific contexts in which it has been developed and used. We interpret the Krogh Principle as a heuristic, i.e., as a recommendation to approach biological problems through organisms where a specific trait or physiological mechanism is expected to be most distinctively displayed or most experimentally accessible. We designate these organisms “Krogh organisms.” We clarify the differences between uses of model organisms and non-standard Krogh organisms. Among these is the use of Krogh organisms as “negative models” in biomedical research, where organisms are chosen for their dissimilarity to human physiology. Importantly, the representational scope of Krogh organisms and the generalizability of their characteristics are not fixed or assumed but explored through experimental studies. Research on Krogh organisms is steeped in the comparative method characteristic of zoology and comparative physiology, in which studies of biological variation produce insights into general physiological constraints. Accordingly, we conclude that the Krogh principle exemplifies the advantages of studying biological variation as a strategy to produce generalizable insights.

Whether we live in a world of autonomous things, or a world of interconnected processes in constant flux, is an ancient philosophical debate. Modern biology provides decisive reasons for embracing the latter view. How does one understand the practices and outputs of science in such a dynamic, ever-changing world - and particularly in an emergency situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where scientific knowledge has been regarded as bedrock for decisive social interventions? We argue that key to answering this question is to consider the role of the activity of reification within the research process. Reification consists in the identification of more or less stable features of the flux, and treating these as constituting stable things. As we illustrate with reference to biological and biomedical research on COVID-19, reification is a necessary component of any process of inquiry and comes in at least two forms: means reification, when researchers create objects meant to capture features of the world, or phenomena, in order to be able to study them; and target reification, when researchers infer an understanding of phenomena from an investigation of the epistemic objects created to study them. We note that both objects and phenomena are dynamic processes and argue that have no reason to assume that changes in objects and phenomena track one another. We conclude that failure to acknowledge these forms of reification and their epistemic role in scientific inquiry can have dire consequences for how the resulting knowledge is interpreted and used.

This Element presents a philosophical exploration of the concept of the 'model organism' in contemporary biology. Thinking about model organisms enables us to examine how living organisms have been brought into the laboratory and used to gain a better understanding of biology, and to explore the research practices, commitments, and norms underlying this understanding. We contend that model organisms are key components of a distinctive way of doing research. We focus on what makes model organisms an important type of model, and how the use of these models has shaped biological knowledge, including how model organisms represent, how they are used as tools for intervention, and how the representational commitments linked to their use as models affect the research practices associated with them. This title is available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

The use of big data to investigate the spread of infectious diseases or the impact of the built environment on human wellbeing goes beyond the realm of traditional approaches to epidemiology, and includes a large variety of data objects produced by research communities with different methods and goals. This paper addresses the conditions under which researchers link, search and interpret such diverse data by focusing on “data mash-ups”—that is the linking of data from epidemiology, biomedicine, climate and environmental science, which is typically achieved by holding one or more basic parameters, such as geolocation, as invariant. We argue that this strategy works best when epidemiologists interpret localisation procedures through an idiographic perspective that recognises their context-dependence and supports a critical evaluation of the epistemic value of geolocation data whenever they are used for new research purposes. Approaching invariants as strategic constructs can foster data linkage and re-use, and support carefully-targeted predictions in ways that can meaningfully inform public health. At the same time, it explicitly signals the limitations in the scope and applicability of the original datasets incorporated into big data collections, and thus the situated nature of data linkage exercises and their predictive power.

This paper analyses the role of information security in shaping the dissemination and re-use of biomedical data, as well as the embedding of such data in the material, social and regulatory landscapes of research. We consider the data management practices adopted by two UK-based data linkage infrastructures: the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage, a Welsh databank that facilitates appropriate re-use of health data derived from research and routine medical practice in the region; and the Medical and Environmental Data Mash-up Infrastructure, a project bringing together researchers from the University of Exeter, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Met Office and Public Health England to link and analyse complex meteorological, environmental and epidemiological data. Through an in-depth analysis of how data are sourced, processed and analysed in these two cases, we show that IS takes two distinct forms: epistemic IS, focused on protecting the reliability and reusability of data as they move across platforms and research contexts; and infrastructural IS, concerned with protecting data from external attacks, mishandling and use disruption. These two dimensions are intertwined and mutually constitutive, and yet are often perceived by researchers as being in tension with each other. We discuss how such tensions emerge when the two dimensions of IS are operationalised in ways that put them at cross purpose with each other, thus exemplifying the vulnerability of data management strategies to broader governance and technological regimes. We also show that whenever biomedical researchers manage to overcome the conflict, the interplay between epistemic and infrastructural IS prompts critical questions concerning data sources, formats, metadata and potential uses, resulting in an improved understanding of the wider context of research and the development of relevant resources. This informs and significantly improves the re-usability of biomedical data, while encouraging exploratory analyses of secondary data sources.

This editorial critically engages with the understanding of openness by attending to how notions of presence and absence come bundled together as part of efforts to make open. This is particularly evident in contemporary discourse around data production, dissemination, and use. We highlight how the preoccupations with making data present can be usefully analyzed and understood by tracing the related concerns around what is missing, unavailable, or invisible, which unvaryingly but often implicitly accompany debates about data and openness.

This groundbreaking, open access volume analyses and compares data practices across several fields through the analysis of specific cases of data journeys. It brings together leading scholars in the philosophy, history and social studies of science to achieve two goals: tracking the travel of data across different spaces, times and domains of research practice; and documenting how such journeys affect the use of data as evidence and the knowledge being produced. The volume captures the opportunities, challenges and concerns involved in making data move from the sites in which they are originally produced to sites where they can be integrated with other data, analysed and re-used for a variety of purposes. The in-depth study of data journeys provides the necessary ground to examine disciplinary, geographical and historical differences and similarities in data management, processing and interpretation, thus identifying the key conditions of possibility for the widespread data sharing associated with Big and Open Data. The chapters are ordered in sections that broadly correspond to different stages of the journeys of data, from their generation to the legitimisation of their use for specific purposes. Additionally, the preface to the volume provides a variety of alternative “roadmaps” aimed to serve the different interests and entry points of readers; and the introduction provides a substantive overview of what data journeys can teach about the methods and epistemology of research.

Open Science policies encourage researchers to disclose a wide range of outputs from their work, thus codifying openness as a specific set of research practices and guidelines that can be interpreted and applied consistently across disciplines and geographical settings. In this paper, we argue that this “one-size-fits-all” view of openness sidesteps key questions about the forms, implications, and goals of openness for research practice. We propose instead to interpret openness as a dynamic and highly situated mode of valuing the research process and its outputs, which encompasses economic as well as scientific, cultural, political, ethical, and social considerations. This interpretation creates a critical space for moving beyond the economic definitions of value embedded in the contemporary biosciences landscape and Open Science policies, and examining the diversity of interests and commitments that affect research practices in the life sciences. To illustrate these claims, we use three case studies that highlight the challenges surrounding decisions about how––and how best––to make things open. These cases, drawn from ethnographic engagement with Open Science debates and semistructured interviews carried out with UK-based biologists and bioinformaticians between 2013 and 2014, show how the enactment of openness reveals judgments about what constitutes a legitimate intellectual contribution, for whom, and with what implications.

This paper examines classification practices in the domain of plant data semantics, and particularly methods used to label plant traits to foster the collection, management, linkage and analysis of data about crops across locations—which crucially inform research and interventions on plants and agriculture. The efforts required to share data place in sharp relief the forms of diversity characterizing the systems used to capture the biological and environmental characteristics of plant variants: particularly the biological, cultural, scientific and semantic diversity affecting the identification and description of plant traits, the methods used to generate and process data, and the goals and skills of those with relevant expertise—including farmers and breeders. Through a study of the Crop Ontology (which explicitly recognizes and negotiates diversity) and its application to cassava breeding, I argue for a process-sensitive approach to the naming of plant traits that focuses on documenting environmental processes instead of biological products. I claim that this approach can foster reliable linkage and robust re-use of plant data, while at the same time facilitating dialogue between data scientists, plant researchers, breeders, and other relevant experts in ways that crucially inform agricultural interventions. I conclude that the study of data semantics and related descriptors constitutes a productive and underexplored way to think about the epistemic import of naming traits within plant science. The effort to articulate semantic differences among plant varieties and methods of data processing can generate newly inclusive ways to develop and communicate biological knowledge. In turn, such practices have the potential to defy existing understandings of systematisation and hierarchies of expertise in biology, thus bolstering the extent to which plant science can support biodiversity and sustainable agriculture.

This article documents how biomedical researchers in the United Kingdom understand and enact the idea of “openness.” This is of particular interest to researchers and science policy worldwide in view of the recent adoption of pioneering policies on Open Science and Open Access by the U.K. government—policies whose impact on and implications for research practice are in need of urgent evaluation, so as to decide on their eventual implementation elsewhere. This study is based on 22 in-depth interviews with U.K. researchers in systems biology, synthetic biology, and bioinformatics, which were conducted between September 2013 and February 2014. Through an analysis of the interview transcripts, we identify seven core themes that characterize researchers’ understanding of openness in science and nine factors that shape the practice of openness in research. Our findings highlight the implications that Open Science policies can have for research processes and outcomes and provide recommendations for enhancing their content, effectiveness, and implementation.

In response to broad transformations brought about by the digitalization, globalization, and commodification of research processes, the Open Science [OS] movement aims to foster the wide dissemination, scrutiny and re-use of research components for the good of science and society. This Element examines the role played by OS principles and practices within contemporary research and how this relates to the epistemology of science. After reviewing some of the concerns that have prompted calls for more openness, I highlight how the interpretation of openness as the sharing of resources, so often encountered in OS initiatives and policies, may have the unwanted effect of constraining epistemic diversity and worsening epistemic injustice, resulting in unreliable and unethical scientific knowledge. By contrast, I propose to frame openness as the effort to establish judicious connections among systems of practice, predicated on a process-oriented view of research as a tool for effective and responsible agency.

How effectively communities of scientists come together and co-operate is crucial both to the quality of research outputs and to the extent to which such outputs integrate insights, data and methods from a variety of fields, laboratories and locations around the globe. This essay focuses on the ensemble of material and social conditions that makes it possible for a short-term collaboration, set up to accomplish a specific task, to give rise to relatively stable communities of researchers. We refer to these distinctive features as repertoires, and investigate their development and implementation across three examples of collaborative research in the life sciences. We conclude that whether a particular project ends up fostering the emergence of a resilient research community is partly determined by the degree of attention and care devoted by researchers to material and social elements beyond the specific research questions under consideration.

The paper problematises the reliability and ethics of using social media data, such as sourced from Twitter or Instagram, to carry out health-related research. As in many other domains, the opportunity to mine social media for information has been hailed as transformative for research on well-being and disease. Considerations around the fairness, responsibilities and accountabilities relating to using such data have often been set aside, on the understanding that as long as data were anonymised, no real ethical or scientific issue would arise. We first counter this perception by emphasising that the use of social media data in health research can yield problematic and unethical results. We then provide a conceptualisation of methodological data fairness that can complement data management principles such as FAIR by enhancing the actionability of social media data for future research. We highlight the forms that methodological data fairness can take at different stages of the research process and identify practical steps through which researchers can ensure that their practices and outcomes are scientifically sound as well as fair to society at large. We conclude that making research data fair as well as FAIR is inextricably linked to concerns around the adequacy of data practices. The failure to act on those concerns raises serious ethical, methodological and epistemic issues with the knowledge and evidence that are being produced.

The collection and dissemination of data on human and nonhuman organisms has become a central feature of 21st-century biology and has been endorsed by funding agencies in the United States and Europe as crucial to translating biological research into therapeutic and agricultural innovation. Large molecular data sets, often referred to as “big data,” are increasingly incorporated into digital databases, many of which are freely accessible online. These data have come to be seen as resources that play a key role in mediating global market exchange, thus achieving a prominent social and economic status well beyond science itself. At the same time, calls to make all such data publicly and freely available have garnered strength and visibility, most prominently in the form of the Open Data movement. I discuss these developments by considering the conditions under which data journey across the communities and institutions implicated in globalized biology and biomedicine, and what this indicates about how Internet-based communication and the use of online databases affect scientific research and its role within contemporary society.

This chapter argues for the importance of considering conceptual and normative commitments when addressing questions of responsible practice in data-intensive agricultural research and development. We consider genetic gain-focused plant breeding strategies that envision a data-intensive mode of breeding in which genomic, environmental and socio-economic data are mobilised for rapid crop variety development. Focusing on socio-economic data linkage, we examine methods of product profiling and how they accommodate gendered dimensions of breeding in the field. Through a comparison with participatory breeding methods, we argue that the conceptual commitments underpinning current methods of integrating socioeconomic data into calculations of genetic gain can preclude the achievement of key social development goals, and that better engagement with participatory approaches can help address this problem. We conclude by identifying three key avenues towards a data-intensive approach to plant breeding that utilises the diverse sources of relevant evidence available, including socio-economic data, and maximises the chance of developing sustainable and responsible strategies and research practices in this domain: (1) reliable, long-term management of data infrastructures; (2) ongoing critical analysis of the conceptual foundations of specific strategies; and (3) regular transdisciplinary consultations including expertise in the social studies of agricultural science as well as participatory breeding techniques.