Talk:Systems biology

Beginning Edit

I plan to update/edit this article in stages as time permits. Anthony.Sebastian 14:57, 17 December 2006 (CST)

Regarding Chris Day's Removal of Externals Links

Chris, you say you're not sure we need the external links to labs and conferences in the 'Systems Biology' article. I feel strongly that they add to the quality of the article. For example, clicking on the link to the Institute for Systems Biology provides the reader with additional depth on the goals and approaches in the discipline not contained in the CZ article, examples of application, and webcasts. CZ gains that at little cost in space or distraction.

Moreover, those labs and conferences abound with experts in many fields, as systems biology operates as an interdisciplinary discipline. Whether those experts discover the CZ article linking to their sites, or we apprise them of the article (or related articles) as potentially benefitting from their expertise, CZ may have a chance of gaining their participation in the project.

I would suggest a comprise: Let's leave the links in, and I will go through each one, eliminating those sites that offer the reader little or no added-value to the main "Systems Biology' article.

Thanks for considering this.

Anthony.Sebastian 13:18, 19 December 2006 (CST)

I am fine with such a compromise, especially if you feel strongly. I would suggest that an exhaustive list is not appropriate. I suppose the original reason for those lists were the novelty factor of systems biology. Such a list would not be considered for a more mature branch of biology so we should keep that in mind too. Chris Day (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Chris, wil keep your suggestions in mind as I edit lists.Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 13:21, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Added section: On the Nature of Biological "Systems"

It seemed me to make the article on 'Systems Biology' more intelligible to the general reader to say something about what systems biologists mean when they speak of 'systems'. I tried to cover just the main points, and to exemplify them. Comments, sggestions, etc., welcomed.

Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 14:19, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Work Done and Needed

So far I have re-written the Introduction--though still not completly happy with it--including incorporating one in-text citation, and have written a new section, following the Introduction, to elucidate the meaning of biological systems, giving examples.

I think the "History" section important to an ultimate grasp of systems biology as a major discipline of biology. It needs fleshing out with a description of the several historical roots converging to modern systems biology. I have begun the re-write offline, and plan to make that my next contibution to the article. Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 14:25, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Hi Anthony. I've dropped a section into this that I wrote for the Vitalism article; it is more appropriate here - I thought the references would be helpful for you to retain even if you want to dismantle the section, if you do that's fine with me. The new vitalism idea has been picked up in a few more recent articles, but is tangential. There's a great quote from Sydney Brenner around that would be perfect - I'll try to find it again Gareth Leng 14:40, 23 December 2006 (CST)

P.S. Hodgkin and Huxley's model was of action potential propagation - not really a nerve cell model (they modelled propagation not initiation of action potentials).Gareth Leng 14:52, 23 December 2006 (CST)

• Gareth: Very nicely done piece on 'emergence'. The concept definitely needs cogent/lucid explication with examples if we want to reach the reader, and it seems apposite for this article. I will check out your references. I will have to convince myself of the wisdom of introducing the term 'vitalism', but I have an open mind. Glad to have someone with your level of expertise and experience working on the article, and to have someone to get feedback from. Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 21:32, 23 December 2006 (CST)

• Gareth: Re the Sydney Brenner quote: Vitalism is dead [see http://www.asa3.org/ASA/BookReviews1949-1989/12-81.html]? I need to check the original source in Nature.
  • Gareth: Perhaps you meant this quote: “Much has been written about the philosophical consequences of molecular biology. I think it is now quite clear what the enterprise is about. We are looking at a rather special part of the physical universe which contains special mechanisms none of which conflict at all with the laws of physics. That there would be new laws of Nature to be found in biological systems was a misjudged view and that hope or fear has just vanished. Our job is simply to find out how these interesting pieces of machinery work, how they get built and how they came to be the way they are. In one sense, the answers already exist and all we have to do is to find out how to look them up in Nature. That is why molecular biology seems to me to be the art of the inevitable.” New directions in molecular biology, Sydney Brenner, 26 April 1974 Vol 248 No 5451 pp785-787.

Added new section: "History of Systems Biology"

I have drafted the beginning of a new section on the history of systems biology. I will further develop the section as time permits. I will incorporate some of the existing "History" section, then delete "History".

Comments welcomed.

Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:53, 25 December 2006 (CST)

Brenner quote

This is what I was recalling: The editorial in Nature Biotechnology begins with a quote from Sydney Brenner "In one way, you could say all the genetic and molecular biological work of the last 60 years could be considered a long interlude...We have come full circle—back to the problems left behind unsolved. How does a wounded organism regenerate exactly the same structure it had before? How does the egg form the organism? In the next 25 years, we are going to have to teach biologists another language...I don't know what it's called yet; nobody knows..."

and goes on to say

"Delivered over 30 years ago, Brenner's cautionary words resound even more forcefully today. Although we may now have a term, 'systems biology,' for his 'language' ..., the central problem remains: how to transform molecular knowledge into an understanding of complex phenomena in cells, tissues, organs and organisms? In the intervening decades, we have become spectacularly successful at creating inventories of genes, proteins and metabolites, but remained spectacularly average at pinpointing key points for medical intervention in disease pathways or determining which recombinant gene(s) to add to generate a complex trait. There is no clear connection between molecular description and such 'systems' phenomena."

Thought it might be worth incorporating?Gareth Leng 13:14, 14 January 2007 (CST)