When I started my studies in biology, I also started my studies in philosophy. I will not brag about it, because most of the knowledge is gone and I am honestly not the best at reading philosophy. But I think that what animated me then, although I did not really understand it at the time, is still here and has evolved to guide me in my scientific practice and career.
The bachelor’s degree in philosophy was a bit tough for me as I did not have the required maturity, as I see it now. It was me reading a bunch of authors whose interests and writings I did not really understand. Six years afterward, I am finally starting to understand what philosophy would be about, in my case, as a toolbox to make sense of my past and present experiences – by finding what words I relate to.
As I did not really appreciate my first degree in philosophy, I stayed away for some time and completed my master’s degree in nutrition and physiology remaining at a safe distance. But philosophy came knocking on my door again as the desire to add depth to my prospective research arose. So, at the same time as I started my Ph.D. in immunology, I started a master’s degree in Philosophy and History of Science. I recall from it enjoyment and fresh air. I remember the thrill of analyzing scientific controversy, learning about the Vienna Circle, and the history of Statistics. It really led me to discover a new world under my scientific research, and I wish that to all scientists because it makes the work even more exciting.
I am still a baby in philosophy and might remain so, but I came to understand what it means to me when it comes to my research. It means the possibility of other approaches. It is a part of maturing my thinking and drawing my own path in science. This is to me the objective of the postdoc: building one’s brand in science by following their own interest and intuitions. As Laplane and colleagues put it1, philosophy has plenty to bring by integrating science. For example, it can offer new theoretical avenues when a paradigm is undermined by advances and also helps see when it is challenged. It has been the case with the discontinuity theory of immunity of Pradeu and Vivier2. Thomas Pradeu is a French philosopher of biology who works in an immunology lab in Bordeaux. As Matzinger’s “danger theory” and the Self-Nonself view got challenged notably by autoimmunity and commensal microbiota, Pradeu and Vivier suggested that the immune response could be triggered by a rapid phenotypic change in antigen patterns. They built a model that is endorsed by empirical observations such as the chronic or weak stimulations leading to tolerogenic responses, and rapid and strong stimulations leading to effector responses. This is very important, as searching for immunogenicity would be very different whether one is looking for a DAMP, a PAMP, or a rapid phenotypic change. Of course, the objective of the theory is not to become dogmatic, but it offers an alternative to formulate hypotheses, design experiments and read results. This is the only kind of input that philosophy can provide into immunology. Importantly, philosopher Elliot Sober insists on the fact that philosophy can help get some light on controversial matters in science when experimental data does not suffice to reach a consensus.
In June 2022, I attended the 2022 edition of the PhilInBioMed summer school for philosophy in biology. PhilInBioMed is an international network of philosophers of biology that promotes interaction between scientists and philosophers of biology and medicine. I enjoyed the summer school a lot. The objective was to promote collaborations by training young philosophers and scientists to work together. We had different kinds of sessions: talks from philosophers about their collaboration with scientists, talks from scientists about their collaboration with philosophers, practical sessions about running interdisciplinary projects, and group work sessions to find a biological question to be answered with philosophy.
What struck me is the benefits and fulfillment that philosophers and biologists can get when working with each other. It really gets personal, as a few scientists expressed the relief and satisfaction that the collaboration brought them. I am truly amazed at how the questions can be asked and answered differently, in a way that will make philosophy AND biology better.
PinS IS biology but from another perspective, and with different equipment. Reading philosophy articles helps me question narratives and beliefs, and sometimes stop lying to myself to fit into stories and practices that I am not making mine. Philosophy is a reminder that science is also a personal process and that having oneself grow into their own path makes its quality. It reminds me why I am here, helps me be grateful for academia and makes it a personal experience. Joining what I wrote earlier, I think that growing in academia as a post-doc in biology is very similar to building a philosophical doctrine for oneself, that will guide experimental work. When I say the doctrine, I do not mean a dogma, of course. I mean a basis for the understanding of the living world, as what the historian of science Michel Morange means with the “scientific culture”. It can and needs to be challenged. This doctrine will be the anchoring point of the dialectical process between scientists and philosophers, but also towards the public. Making the narrative mine, rather than fitting one that does not feel comfortable, will make me actually convincing. It is really about constructing an identity and direction for my thoughts and questioning my assumptions. And philosophers help me understand that I need that for myself. I am not mature yet. But I am getting there! I know that finding my own coherence or identifying my weaknesses within a philosophical system is one of the objectives of my post-doc, and I do not consider my science outside of that framework. I am starting to see where philosophy enters my own practice of science. What is of interest to me right now are the concepts of dysbiosis and metabolic flexibility and how they should be studied, following a paper written by philosopher Jonathan Sholl1. I think it is super interesting to question my work and the validity of the models that I use, and maybe redirect some of my questions. It also gave me a few ideas that I would like to try out and directed some of my readings toward the hypothesis for the evolutionary origins of metabolic diseases.
Give it a chance! Immunology, microbiology, cancer, or stem cells have their associated philosophy, maybe you would like it!
So now, after this abstract blog article, I will be back to business and go cry on the bench. Wishing you a pleasant day!
Author: Adélaïde Gélineau
References:
1 Laplane, L., Mantovani, P., Adolphs, R., Chang, H., Mantovani, A., McFall-Ngai, M., Rovelli, C., Sober, E., & Pradeu, T. (2019). Why science needs philosophy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(10), 3948–3952. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900357116
2 Pradeu, T., Vivier, E. (2016)., The discontinuity theory of immunity. Sci. Immunol. 1(1), p. aag0479. 10.1126/sciimmunol.aag0479
3 Sholl, J., Mailing, L. J., & Wood, T. R. (2021). Reframing Nutritional Microbiota Studies To Reflect an Inherent Metabolic Flexibility of the Human Gut: A Narrative Review Focusing on High-Fat Diets. MBio, 12(2), e00579-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00579-21