Generalizing Biology/ Medicine
14 Jan 2018Generality has never been medicine or biology’s forte. In these fields, the more specific, the better. Generally speaking.
Biologists have always been more concerned with naming new species, or finding new unique biological pathways or mechanism. You can see this in any cursory study of molecular biology. The naming schemes in molecular biology are non-existent. There is no general ordering.
Similarly, it seems physicians have always been more concerned with the specific. Developing specific techniques for specific cases. Studying “interesting” patients, diseases or disorders. Finding rare genetic mutations.
On the other hand, the harder, more formal sciences—math, physics, computer science, statistics—seem to do the opposite. The more general your contribution, the more widely respected. The more general, the better.
And this is why these sciences have been more successful. I think it’s probably safe to argue that generalizability is actually proportional to utility. By definition, the more general a statement, the greater the number of specific facts it applies to. And it must be reasonable to say that the more specific facts a statement applies to the more useful.1
But why this difference between the more formal sciences and biology? Maybe because the formal disciplines have the luxury of being formal. Medicine/ biology can’t entertain this luxury because life is messy. There is little time for theory and formality when you’re dealing with bags of meat and water.
There are examples in the history of biology/ medicine where generality has shown its utility there too, though.
The most obvious example is the discovery of the central dogma. DNA \(\Rightarrow\) RNA \(\Rightarrow\) Protein. The very reason this was exciting/ useful was because it applied (i.e. generalized) to all living organisms. The central dogma is the very basis for biological life.
So it is possible to achieve generality in biology. It’s now just a question of layers and data acquistion. Which layer to focus on and how to get the data. As biology/ medicine become increasingly informational, the name of the game will more and more be generalizability rather than specificity.
And all the better in my view. A more general biology is undoubtedly a better biology. And a more general medicine undoubtedly a better steward for a healthier human race.
1. This is often because general statements are more abstract, stripped of their specific details and left only with their essential features.
Although, this doesn’t always need be the case. The central dogma is fairly specific in its description. More or less, it works the same way in all organisms. The differences between its specific instantiations in different types of organisms pales in comparison to its commonalities.
What makes the central dogma general is the fact that it occurs at a lower level of the biological heirarchy, so it applies to all higher levels. And similiarly it was evolved at the earliest stages of life, so it supports and applies to all later stages of life.
So generality can also mean deeper, or earlier/ historical, facts. Return.