- Email: [email protected]
EDITORIAL. ‘SPLITTING’ AND ‘LUMPING’ RECONCILED?
Cell Biology International, 1997, Vol. 21, No. 10, 617 Article No. cb980222
EDITORIAL ‘SPLITTING’ AND ‘LUMPING’ RECONCILED? It requires but a fleeting scan of the contents of research journals purporting collectively to cover a broad swathe of contemporary biology to form an impression of the pre-eminence of molecular genetic technologies. Biological ‘splitters’ (reductionists) are in the ascendant, whilst the ‘lumpers’ (holists) have seemingly retreated under the deluge of low organisation-level data. But is this perception accurate? Or, perhaps more pertinently, if the perception is but partly sound is the demise of physiology in the broadest sense inevitable and/or desirable? A plea for the integration of reductive information to yield higher order, holistic, physiological information was a recurrent and cogent theme in the eclectic collection of essays edited by Boyd and Noble (1993), under the title: The Logic of Life. The Challenge of Integrative Physiology (Oxford University Press). Some flavour of the thrust of this provocative volume is encapsulated in sentences derived from the Foreword of Professor Sir James Black (p. vii: ‘The repertoire of chemical messengers [converging simultaneously on a cell] is already extensive . . . because we have no conceptual framework to integrate them . . . Hopes of realizing the optimistic forecasts about the benefits that molecular biology will bring to pharmacology are likely, I believe, to be circumscribed by the state of physiological knowledge, models, and concepts.’), and in the essay written by the two editors (p. 5: ‘Far therefore from molecular biology ‘‘explaining’’ physiology, physiology . . . will be totally necessary for an understanding of what all the molecular biology means’). The above preamble provides a philosophical framework for seeking common ground between the individual contributions published in this the first Special Issue of Cell Biology International. One may recognize four generic techniques (laser microprobe mass spectrometry; secondary ion mass spectrometry; electron probe X-ray microanalysis; laser confocal microscopy coupled with ionsensitive molecular probes) spread over the seven publications, with little apparently linking the techniques apart from their being the trade tools of compulsive splitters. There is no doubt that the techniques each provide a means of delving down into the chemistry of individual cells or, indeed, 1065–6995/97/100617+01 $30.00/0
of subcellular compartments. However, the techniques share the property of being ‘histochemical’ rather than ‘biochemical’. By this I mean that they, to a greater or lesser extent, enable the researcher to determine the chemical composition of entities identifiable on the basis of morphology. In this sense, therefore, it occurs to me that these techniques represent a point of convergence, where the splitters and lumpers can partake in constructive dialogue to the considerable benefit of diverse biomedical sub-disciplines. (Other essentially histochemical techniques, such as immunocytochemistry, in situ hybridization, and physical techniques not described in this issue such as the proton probe and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, offer similar opportunities). I will allow the reader to decide whether there is merit in this personal observation. Merit or no, it is unquestionably true that the contributions to the Special Issue require no justification from me; the authors either explicitly or implicitly provide their own justifications. Two of the contributions to the Special Issue describe techniques that are generally less familiar to the cell physiologist than the others. I refer to the substantial reviews by Van Vaeck et al. and Clerc et al., respectively. In both cases the authors have responded conscientiously to the editorial request to describe principles, strengths and limitations, as well as examples of the biomedical applications of their specialized techniques. The other papers in this issue provide valuable illustrations of applications of techniques that are more familiar and perhaps more generally accessible. I thank all the contributors for their efforts. To paraphrase familiar words from the Book of Corinthians, these histochemical approaches allow us to see through or into the glass of cellular physiology less darkly.
A. John Morgan School of Pure and Applied Biology University of Wales Cardiff P.O. Box 915 Cardiff CF1 3TL, UK
1997 Academic Press
EDITORIAL ‘SPLITTING’ AND ‘LUMPING’ RECONCILED? It requires but a fleeting scan of the contents of research journals purporting collectively to cover a broad swathe of contemporary biology to form an impression of the pre-eminence of molecular genetic technologies. Biological ‘splitters’ (reductionists) are in the ascendant, whilst the ‘lumpers’ (holists) have seemingly retreated under the deluge of low organisation-level data. But is this perception accurate? Or, perhaps more pertinently, if the perception is but partly sound is the demise of physiology in the broadest sense inevitable and/or desirable? A plea for the integration of reductive information to yield higher order, holistic, physiological information was a recurrent and cogent theme in the eclectic collection of essays edited by Boyd and Noble (1993), under the title: The Logic of Life. The Challenge of Integrative Physiology (Oxford University Press). Some flavour of the thrust of this provocative volume is encapsulated in sentences derived from the Foreword of Professor Sir James Black (p. vii: ‘The repertoire of chemical messengers [converging simultaneously on a cell] is already extensive . . . because we have no conceptual framework to integrate them . . . Hopes of realizing the optimistic forecasts about the benefits that molecular biology will bring to pharmacology are likely, I believe, to be circumscribed by the state of physiological knowledge, models, and concepts.’), and in the essay written by the two editors (p. 5: ‘Far therefore from molecular biology ‘‘explaining’’ physiology, physiology . . . will be totally necessary for an understanding of what all the molecular biology means’). The above preamble provides a philosophical framework for seeking common ground between the individual contributions published in this the first Special Issue of Cell Biology International. One may recognize four generic techniques (laser microprobe mass spectrometry; secondary ion mass spectrometry; electron probe X-ray microanalysis; laser confocal microscopy coupled with ionsensitive molecular probes) spread over the seven publications, with little apparently linking the techniques apart from their being the trade tools of compulsive splitters. There is no doubt that the techniques each provide a means of delving down into the chemistry of individual cells or, indeed, 1065–6995/97/100617+01 $30.00/0
of subcellular compartments. However, the techniques share the property of being ‘histochemical’ rather than ‘biochemical’. By this I mean that they, to a greater or lesser extent, enable the researcher to determine the chemical composition of entities identifiable on the basis of morphology. In this sense, therefore, it occurs to me that these techniques represent a point of convergence, where the splitters and lumpers can partake in constructive dialogue to the considerable benefit of diverse biomedical sub-disciplines. (Other essentially histochemical techniques, such as immunocytochemistry, in situ hybridization, and physical techniques not described in this issue such as the proton probe and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, offer similar opportunities). I will allow the reader to decide whether there is merit in this personal observation. Merit or no, it is unquestionably true that the contributions to the Special Issue require no justification from me; the authors either explicitly or implicitly provide their own justifications. Two of the contributions to the Special Issue describe techniques that are generally less familiar to the cell physiologist than the others. I refer to the substantial reviews by Van Vaeck et al. and Clerc et al., respectively. In both cases the authors have responded conscientiously to the editorial request to describe principles, strengths and limitations, as well as examples of the biomedical applications of their specialized techniques. The other papers in this issue provide valuable illustrations of applications of techniques that are more familiar and perhaps more generally accessible. I thank all the contributors for their efforts. To paraphrase familiar words from the Book of Corinthians, these histochemical approaches allow us to see through or into the glass of cellular physiology less darkly.
A. John Morgan School of Pure and Applied Biology University of Wales Cardiff P.O. Box 915 Cardiff CF1 3TL, UK
1997 Academic Press