Why the study?
Understanding activities in biological mechanisms requires an account of how entities engage in activities without merely explaining them in terms of more basic entities and activities.
This philosophical paper proposes expanding the mechanistic explanation framework in biology to include constraints and energetics, using molecular motors as an example.
Provides non-reductive account of myosin activity; leaves open translation to cardiac research and practice.
Unless one embraces activities as foundational, understanding activities in mechanisms requires an account of the means by which entities in biological mechanisms engage in their activities—an account that does not merely explain activities in terms of more basic entities and activities. Recent biological research on molecular motors (myosin and kinesin) exemplifies such an account, one that explains activities in terms of free energy and constraints. After describing the characteristic “stepping” activities of these molecules and mapping the stages of those steps onto the stages of the motors’ hydrolytic cycles, researchers pieced together from images of the molecules in different hydrolyzation states accounts of how the chemical energy in ATP is transformed in the constrained environments of the motors into the characteristic activities of the motors. We argue that New Mechanism’s standard set of analytic categories—entities (parts), activities (operations), and organization—should be expanded to include constraints and energetics. Not only is such an expansion required descriptively to capture research on molecular motors but, more importantly from a philosophical point of view, it enables a non-regressive account of activities in mechanisms. In other words, this expansion enables a philosophical account of mechanistic explanation that avoids a regress of entities and activities “all the way down.” Rather, mechanistic explanation bottoms out in constraints and energetics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bechtel et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: