Bringing physics to bear on the phenomenon of life: the divergent positions of Bohr, Delbrück, and Schrödinger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The received view on the contributions of the physics community to the birth of molecular biology tends to present the physics community as sharing a basic level consensus on how physics should be brought to bear on biology. I argue, however, that a close examination of the views of three leading physicists involved in the birth of molecular biology, Bohr, Delbrück, and Schrödinger, suggests that there existed fundamental disagreements on how physics should be employed to solve problems in biology even within the physics community. In particular, I focus on how these three figures differed sharply in their assessment of the relevance of complementarity, the potential of chemical methods, and the relative importance of classical physics. In addition, I assess and develop Roll-Hansen's attempt to conceptualize this history in terms of models of scientific change advanced by Kuhn and Lakatos. Though neither model is fully successful in explaining the divergence of views among these three physicists, I argue that the extent and quality of difference in their views help elucidate and extend some themes that are left opaque in Kuhn's model.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)433-458
Number of pages26
JournalStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
Volume37
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Sep
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Physics
Molecular Biology
Parturition
History
Physicists

Keywords

  • Biology
  • Complementarity
  • Erwin Schrödinger
  • Max Delbrück
  • Niels Bohr
  • Physics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{14641f6564ab43a0ad4df58d2d1a1170,
title = "Bringing physics to bear on the phenomenon of life: the divergent positions of Bohr, Delbr{\"u}ck, and Schr{\"o}dinger",
abstract = "The received view on the contributions of the physics community to the birth of molecular biology tends to present the physics community as sharing a basic level consensus on how physics should be brought to bear on biology. I argue, however, that a close examination of the views of three leading physicists involved in the birth of molecular biology, Bohr, Delbr{\"u}ck, and Schr{\"o}dinger, suggests that there existed fundamental disagreements on how physics should be employed to solve problems in biology even within the physics community. In particular, I focus on how these three figures differed sharply in their assessment of the relevance of complementarity, the potential of chemical methods, and the relative importance of classical physics. In addition, I assess and develop Roll-Hansen's attempt to conceptualize this history in terms of models of scientific change advanced by Kuhn and Lakatos. Though neither model is fully successful in explaining the divergence of views among these three physicists, I argue that the extent and quality of difference in their views help elucidate and extend some themes that are left opaque in Kuhn's model.",
keywords = "Biology, Complementarity, Erwin Schr{\"o}dinger, Max Delbr{\"u}ck, Niels Bohr, Physics",
author = "Andrew Domondon",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.06.014",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "433--458",
journal = "Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences",
issn = "1369-8486",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bringing physics to bear on the phenomenon of life

T2 - the divergent positions of Bohr, Delbrück, and Schrödinger

AU - Domondon, Andrew

PY - 2006/9

Y1 - 2006/9

N2 - The received view on the contributions of the physics community to the birth of molecular biology tends to present the physics community as sharing a basic level consensus on how physics should be brought to bear on biology. I argue, however, that a close examination of the views of three leading physicists involved in the birth of molecular biology, Bohr, Delbrück, and Schrödinger, suggests that there existed fundamental disagreements on how physics should be employed to solve problems in biology even within the physics community. In particular, I focus on how these three figures differed sharply in their assessment of the relevance of complementarity, the potential of chemical methods, and the relative importance of classical physics. In addition, I assess and develop Roll-Hansen's attempt to conceptualize this history in terms of models of scientific change advanced by Kuhn and Lakatos. Though neither model is fully successful in explaining the divergence of views among these three physicists, I argue that the extent and quality of difference in their views help elucidate and extend some themes that are left opaque in Kuhn's model.

AB - The received view on the contributions of the physics community to the birth of molecular biology tends to present the physics community as sharing a basic level consensus on how physics should be brought to bear on biology. I argue, however, that a close examination of the views of three leading physicists involved in the birth of molecular biology, Bohr, Delbrück, and Schrödinger, suggests that there existed fundamental disagreements on how physics should be employed to solve problems in biology even within the physics community. In particular, I focus on how these three figures differed sharply in their assessment of the relevance of complementarity, the potential of chemical methods, and the relative importance of classical physics. In addition, I assess and develop Roll-Hansen's attempt to conceptualize this history in terms of models of scientific change advanced by Kuhn and Lakatos. Though neither model is fully successful in explaining the divergence of views among these three physicists, I argue that the extent and quality of difference in their views help elucidate and extend some themes that are left opaque in Kuhn's model.

KW - Biology

KW - Complementarity

KW - Erwin Schrödinger

KW - Max Delbrück

KW - Niels Bohr

KW - Physics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748482176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748482176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.06.014

DO - 10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.06.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 16980187

AN - SCOPUS:33748482176

VL - 37

SP - 433

EP - 458

JO - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

JF - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

SN - 1369-8486

IS - 3

ER -