Premium
Regulation, necessity, and the misinterpretation of knockouts
Author(s) -
Davies Jamie
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
bioessays
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.175
H-Index - 184
eISSN - 1521-1878
pISSN - 0265-9247
DOI - 10.1002/bies.200900044
Subject(s) - causality (physics) , gene knockout , process (computing) , set (abstract data type) , epistemology , computer science , key (lock) , simple (philosophy) , cognitive science , biology , computational biology , data science , psychology , gene , genetics , computer security , philosophy , physics , quantum mechanics , programming language , operating system
Much contemporary biology consists of identifying the molecular components that associate to perform biological functions, then discovering how these functions are controlled. The concept of control is key to biological understanding, at least of the physiological kind; identifying regulators of processes underpins ideas of causality and allows complicated, multicomponent systems to be summarized in relatively simple diagrams and models. Unfortunately, as this article demonstrates by drawing on published articles, there is a growing tendency for authors to claim that a molecule is a ‘regulator’ of something on evidence that cannot support the conclusion. In particular, gene knockout experiments, which can demonstrate only that a molecule is necessary for a process, are all too frequently being misinterpreted as revealing regulation. This logical error threatens to blur the important distinction between regulation and mere necessity and therefore to weaken one of our strongest tools for comprehending how organisms work.