ПРОБЛЕМА РЕДУКЦИОНИЗМА B БИОЛОГИИ Проводится

.H.
,
,
,
3,
.
1, 00014,
; e-mail: ruslan.kalendar@helsinki.fi
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND THEORY OF TOTALITY IN BIOLOGY
R.N. Kalendar
Institute of Biotechnology, MTT/BI Plant Genomics Lab, Biocentre 3, Viikinkaari 1, 00014, University of Helsinki,
Finland; e-mail: ruslan.kalendar@helsinki.fi
The reductionist method of dissecting biological systems into their constituent parts has been
effective in explaining the chemical basis of numerous living processes. However, now is clearly
visible that this approach has reached its limit. Biological systems are extremely complex and have
emergent properties that cannot be explained, or even predicted, by studying their individual parts.
Our thinking should not also be adequate to ask where an organ of a living being originates instead
of what purpose it serves. Should be viewed the object as is never what purpose something serves
but always how it develops.
,
,
,
.
,
.
-
,
,
,
[2,12].
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
[9].
,
,
,
[1],
.
,«
»
,
,
,
[12].
.
,
.
-
,
,
.
,
«
»,
[13,15].
,
,
,
,
,
[4,7].
[3].
[4],
,
,
,
,
,
[14].
,
,
:
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
[5].
,
.
,
,
,
(
).
,
.
,
,
.
,
[9].
,
[11].
,
,
,
[6].
.
,
,
,
,
«
,
.
»
.
,
-
.
,
.
,
.
,
-
.
,
.
-
,
.
,
.
,
-
.
.
,
-
,
.
,
;
,
-
. ,
,
«
»
,
.
,
,
,
,
[10].
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
[8],
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
)
,
,
.
,
,
;
.
,
.
:
, :
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
(
)
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
(
,
).
.
,
[15].
,
.
,
,
:
,
, -
,
[15].
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
1.
Alm E., Arkin A.P. Biological networks// Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2003. V.13. P.193–202.
2.
Bickle J. Philosophy and Neuroscience: a Ruthlessly Reductive Account // Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 2003. P. 235.
3.
Drews J. Strategic trends in the drug industry// Drug Discov Today. 2003. V.8. P. 411–420.
4.
Glassman R.H., Sun A.Y. Biotechnology: identifying advances from the hype // Nat Rev Drug
Discov. 2004. V.3. P. 177–183.
5.
Horrobin D.F. Realism in drug discovery: could Cassandra be right? // Nature Biotech. 2001. V. 19. P.
1099–1100.
6.
Horrobin D.F. Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact
with medical reality? // Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003. V.2. P. 151–154.
7.
Kubinyi H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality //Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003. V. 2. P. 665–668.
8.
Lewontin R. The Triple Helix. Gene, Organism and Environment. Harvard University Press.
Cambridge: MA, USA. 2000.
9.
Morange M. A successful form of reductionism // The Biochemist. 2001a. V. 23. P. 37–39.
10.
Morange M. The Misunderstood Gene. Harvard University Press. Cambridge: MA, USA. 2001b.
11.
Pearson H. Surviving a knockout blow // Nature 2002. V.415. P. 8–9.
12.
Van Regenmortel M.H.V. Biological complexity emerges from the ashes of genetic reductionism // J.
Mol Recognit. 2004. V.17 P. 145–148.
13.
Van Regenmortel M.H.V. Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology// EMBO reports. 2004.
V. 5 P. 1016 – 1020.
14.
15.
Williams D.A., Baum C. Gene therapy: new challenges ahead // Science. 2003. N. 302. P. 400–401.
.
.
,
,
. /M.:
,
, 1993.- 144 c.