Scientific iconoclasm and active imagination: synthetic cells as techno-scientific mandalas

Zwart, Hub

doi:10.1186/s40504-018-0075-0

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cell seems to have shed its ascetic heritage, and current understandings reflect a revaluation of values. For whereas the monastic cell image suggests a sealed, cramped, empty, silent, inactive location, the cells that are studied by contemporary technoscience today are highly active, interactive and semi-transparent laboratory-like structures, vibrant and full of life, plastic and adaptive (Zwart 2018). In other words, our sensitivity to metaphors should reveal how metaphors evolve.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was not the end of the animals-are-machines idea, of course. During the second half of the nineteenth century, Claude Bernard for instance, the infamous father of vivisection, reverted to the Cartesian viewpoint that, in order to explore their inner machinery, the bodies of research animals had to be systematically "dismantled", but this attitude was severely criticised, by Ivan Pavlov for instance, who argued that only normal, healthy animals can serve as reliable models in physiological experiments (Zwart 2016b(Zwart , 2018. In short, instead of providing a paradigmatic Leitbild for physiological research, many prominent physiologists regarded the animal-machine model as questionable and misguided.…”

Section: Case Study 1: the Animal-machinementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fabricated Truths and the Pathos of Proximity: What Would be a Nietzschean Philosophy of Contemporary Technoscience?

Zwart

2019

Found Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, Nietzsche's views on (natural) science attracted a considerable amount of scholarly attention. Overall, his attitude towards science tends to be one of suspicion, or ambivalence at least. My article addresses the "Nietzsche and science" theme from a slightly different perspective, raising a somewhat different type of question, more pragmatic if you like, namely: how to be a Nietzschean philosopher of science today? What would the methodological contours of a Nietzschean approach to present-day research areas (such as neuroscience, astrophysics, synthetic biology or climate studies) amount to? In other words, my paper reflects a shift of focus from author studies to extrapolation. The design of my article is as follows. I will start with the question (already widely discussed in the expert literature) to what extent Friedrich Nietzsche (a classical philologist by training) managed to familiarise himself with the natural sciences of his epoch. Subsequently, I will outline some basic methodological and conceptual ingredients of Nietzsche's philosophy of science, focussing on core issues such as "genealogy", "interpretation", "enhancement" and "truth". Next, I will elucidate Nietzsche's genealogical methodology with the help of three case studies (three representative samples if you will) taken from Nietzsche's writings and dealing with physiology, astronomy and neuro-psychology respectively. Finally, I will present the methodological contours of a Nietzschean understanding of contemporary technoscience.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Case Study 1: the Animal-machinementioning

confidence: 99%

Fabricated Truths and the Pathos of Proximity: What Would be a Nietzschean Philosophy of Contemporary Technoscience?

Zwart

2019

Found Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Zwart discusses the imaginative function of the metaphorical analogy 'between synthetic cell diagrams and mandalas [which] not only pertain to the role of the object […], but also to the subject pole (the researcher […]).' ( [118], p. 14). However, this fundamental epistemic function of metaphors does not imply that they are infallible and innocuous at all.…”

Section: Reveal the Revolution: Methodologically Controlled Use Of Mementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a broader context, both conceptual and ethical questions of synthetic biology generally call for philosophical investigations into the relations in which the words 'technology' and 'life' are used ( [58], pp. [117][118]. In order to contribute to this challenge, we will reframe how the concept of life is used in the debates within and about synthetic biology.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Buzz to Burst—Critical Remarks on the Term ‘Life’ and Its Ethical Implications in Synthetic Biology

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we examine the use of the term 'life' in the debates within and about synthetic biology. We review different positions within these debates, focusing on the historical background, the constructive epistemology of laboratory research and the pros and cons of metaphorical speech. We argue that 'life' is used as buzzword, as folk concept, and as theoretical concept in inhomogeneous ways. Extending beyond the review of the significant literature, we also argue that 'life' can be understood as a Burstword in two concrete senses. Firstly, terms such as life easily turn into fuzzy, foggy and buzzy clouds of nonsense, if their use is not appropriately reflected. In these cases, the semantic orientation is detonated. This is the Burstword I characteristic of the concept of 'life' that we reveal for its unclear terminological use. Secondly, and in contrast to Burstword I, we show that the concept of 'life' can be used in a methodologically controlled way. We call this kind of use Burstword II.Here the concept of 'life' fulfils the function of expanding an inadequately narrow disciplinary or conceptual focus in different discursive contexts. In this second sense, 'life' receives an important operational function, for instance as a transdisciplinary research principle. It turns out that the innovative function and paradigm-changing power of metaphorical speech belong here as well. Finally, we illustrate three ethically relevant examples that show how 'life' can be applied as Burstword II in the context of synthetic biology. Keywords Life . Synthetic biology . Metaphors of life . Life as metaphor . Ethics of synthetic biology . Buzzword . Burstword From Review to Reaction: IntroductionAs a subdiscipline of biology (the natural science of life), synthetic biology engages by definition with 'life' and its metaphors. What makes it special and new is its constructive, engineering approach. It can be said that the groundbreaking aim of synthetic biology is, as Ruiz-Mirazo and Moreno put it, 'to learn more about the living by means of re-construction or fabricating it-in contrast to the analytical-descriptive work that has, so far, been the most important way of generation knowledge in biology' ([97], p. 378). It is exactly this combination-the engineering attitude and certain life forms as its objects-that raises a lot of questions and especially engenders ethical criticism. The special ethical relevance of synthetic biology is supposed to be

show abstract

“…As indicated above, molecular biotechnology allows us to discern the noumenal, bio-molecular essence of living entities, thereby making living systems accessible for manipulation. But the only convincing proof that we, as logical animals, are really able to grasp and come to terms with life, is by mimicking and reassembling it again, in the form of a synthetic cell, representing a dialectical turn from analysis to synthesis, and from reductionism to regained holism (Zwart, 2018). We only know that we understand how a living cell functions if we can realise its program, but now in vitro.…”

Section: Building a Synthetic Cellmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is Mimicked by Biomimicry? Synthetic Cells as Exemplifications of the Threefold Biomimicry Paradox

Zwart¹

2019

Environmental Values

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses three paradoxes of biomimicry. First of all: how can biomimicry be as old as technology as such and at the same time decidedly innovative and new? Secondly: how can biomimicry both entail a 'naturalisation' of technology and a 'technification' of nature? And finally: how can biomimicry be perceived as nature-friendly but at the same time (potentially at least) as a pervasive biotechnological assault on nature? Contemporary (technoscientific) biomimicry, I will argue, aims to mimic nature at the level of biomolecular processes and structures: contemporary biomimicry as micro-biomimicry. Moreover, building on Aristotle, Delbrück and Schrödinger, I will emphasise that what is mimicked by contemporary (technoscientific) biomimicry, in contrast to traditional (artisanal) instances of biomimicry, is not the morphological form (eidos), but rather the program or formula (logos;) of living systems. Contemporary biomimicry is 'in accordance with nature', but not in the traditional sense. Rather, building on decades of biomolecular research, it strives to reconcile nature and technology against the backdrop of advanced technicity. But biomimetics will only achieve its goals if it is not pursued purely as a technological endeavour, but complemented by an ethos of sustainability and respect for nature. These claims will be elucidated with the help of two case studies: a research project (namely the BaSyC project, launched in 2017 and aimed at producing a synthetic cell) and a science novel (namely Ian McEwan's Solar, which concerns the epistemic and moral challenges involved in artificial photosynthesis).

show abstract

Scientific iconoclasm and active imagination: synthetic cells as techno-scientific mandalas

Cited by 5 publications

References 31 publications

Fabricated Truths and the Pathos of Proximity: What Would be a Nietzschean Philosophy of Contemporary Technoscience?

Fabricated Truths and the Pathos of Proximity: What Would be a Nietzschean Philosophy of Contemporary Technoscience?

From Buzz to Burst—Critical Remarks on the Term ‘Life’ and Its Ethical Implications in Synthetic Biology

What is Mimicked by Biomimicry? Synthetic Cells as Exemplifications of the Threefold Biomimicry Paradox

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About