Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An operational definition of biological development

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the undeniable epistemic progress of developmental biology from the second half of the twentieth century to the present day, there still is widespread disagreement on defining the biological term of ‘development’. This scientific field epistemologically is neither unsuccessful nor immature, thus the persistent lack of agreement on its most central concept raises some important questions: is there any need for an explicit definition of biological development, and if so, what content should the definition have? My central thesis is twofold. First, that current definitions of biological development are conceptually or empirically inadequate. Second, that an explicit definition of biological development is very much needed (a) for the practical purposes of science textbooks, but more importantly is needed (b) epistemically for exposing or overcoming problematic assumptions and for partially guiding scientific research by coding the appropriate assumptions. To support this thesis, initially I will show the deficiencies of the dominant definitions of biological development; and subsequently I will provide two arguments: an Argument from Practical Purposes and an Argument from Epistemic Purposes. Finally, for accommodating practical and epistemic purposes and as a response to the inadequacy of the available definitions of development, I will propose and defend an operational definition of biological development which is aimed to be broader than the received ones, while being more precise and fruitful to conduct empirical research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, see the works of Weiss (1957, 1959).

  2. For example, see the work of Oppenheimer (1966).

  3. See also: Crow et al. (2015), Gilbert (1991), and Hopwood (2019).

  4. E.g.: Turing’s reaction–diffusion model for biological pattern formation (Turing 1952); the first successful nuclear transplantation in frogs, namely the first cloning experiment (Briggs and King 1952); discovery of the potential reversibility of cell specification and cloning frogs (Gurdon 1958, 1962); a mechanism for pattern formation based on the concept of “positional information” (Wolpert 1969); discovery of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) for development (Britten and Davidson 1969; Davidson 1986); the first IVF baby was born (Steptoe and Edwards 1978); discovery of homeobox genes that regulate morphogenesis (Garber et al. 1983; Scott et al. 1983); the first cloned mammal: a sheep named ‘Dolly’ (Wilmut et al. 1997; Maienschein 2014).

  5. '[A]n antithesis which Aristotle was the first to perceive, and the subsequent history of which is almost synonymous with the history of embryology’ (Needham 1959: 40).

  6. Resembling somewhat the function of what came to be known later as Spemann’s organizer.

  7. Aristotle thought that in blooded animals, for example in humans, the foetation is definitely constituted only when the heart has formed (735a), in that stage he believed that the foetus is already a potentially ‘imperfect animal’ (i.e. nonlocomotive animal) (740a24)), because it necessarily needs nourishment from an external source—i.e. from the uterus of its mother (like a plant makes use of the soil)– until such time as it is sufficiently perfected to be a potentially locomotive animal (740a24-27).

  8. Development is “how a single fertilized egg cell goes through the complex and beautifully orchestrated series of changes that create an entire organism” (Barinaga 1994).

  9. As Minelli (2021: 26) correctly points out: “It is difficult to deny that the adultocentric vision [of development] contains a good deal of finalism. From this point of view, a comparison between developmental biology and evolutionary biology can be interesting. In the latter, finalism survives only in rather superficial popular versions of the theory, in which evolution is considered synonymous with progress, rather than a continuous and always imperfect adjustment to the changing conditions faced by a population. In developmental biology, however, sentences with a finalistic flavour often come from the pen of authoritative scientists. For example, Eric Davidson, a scholar to whom we owe major achievements in the molecular genetics of development, wrote that ‘development is the execution of the genetic programme for the construction of a given species of organism’ […].”.

  10. Besides its vague thinness, this definition “Development is the route by which an organism goes from genotype to phenotype” (Gilbert and Barresi 2019) is misleading regarding the relation between genome and phenotype, for the following reasons: First, it gives the wrong impression that the relation between genome and phenotype can exist in vacuum (without any environmental input/context) for it does not mention the dimension/component of environment; and second it misrepresents this relation as unidirectional –a directed path from the genome to the phenotype– where in biological reality the causal influence can run both ways due the influence that phenotype can exert on certain environmental parameters which on turn can have a non-negligible impact on the genotype (Brandon 1990; Lewontin 2000). In other words, Gilbert’s most recent definition of biological development (Gilbert and Barresi 2019) fails because it is committed to some global/extreme version of genetic determinism which is outdated (patently false).

References

  • Barinaga M (1994) Looking to development’s future. Science 266:561–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Bich L, Green S (2018) Is defining life pointless? Operational definitions at the frontiers of biology. Synthese 195:3919–3946

    Google Scholar 

  • Bich L, Skillings D (2022) There are no intermediate stages: an organizational view of development. In: Mossio M (ed) Organization in biology. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon R (1990) Adaptation and environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2016) Do we need a ‘theory’ of development? Biol Philos 31:603–617

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs R, King TJ (1952) Transplantation of living nuclei from blastula cells into enucleated frogs’ eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 38(5):455–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Britten RJ, Davidson EH (1969) Gene regulation for higher cells: a theory. Science 165:349–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Burian R, Thieffry D (2000) Introduction to the special issue. ‘From embryology to developmental biology.’ Hist Philos Life Sci 3:313–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Craver CF (2007) Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Craver CF, Darden L (2013) In search of mechanisms: discoveries across the life sciences. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe N et al (2015) The diversification of developmental biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 53:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson EH (1986) Gene activity in early development. Academic Press, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson EH (1991) Spatial mechanisms of gene regulation in metazoan embryos. Development 113:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson EH (2001) Genomic regulatory systems: Development and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Fusco G, Minelli A (2019) Introductory concepts. The biology of reproduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 6–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber RL, Kuroiwa A, Gehring WJ (1983) Genomic and cDNA clones of the homeotic locus Antennapedia in Drosophila. EMBO J 2:2027–2036

  • Gilbert SF (1991) Preface. In: Gilbert SF (ed) A conceptual history of modern embryology. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp vii–ix

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert SF (1998) Conceptual breakthroughs in developmental biology. J Biosci 23:169–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert SF (2010) Developmental biology, 9th edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert SF, Barresi MJF (2016) Developmental biology, 11th edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert SF, Barresi MJF (2019) Developmental biology, 12th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BC, Kauffman SA, Murray JD (1993) Is morphogenesis an intrinsically robust process? J Theor Biol 163:135–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotthelf A, Falcon A (2018) ‘One long argument’? The unity of Aristotle’s generation of animals. In: Falcon A, Lefebvre D (eds) Aristotle’s generation of animals: a critical guide. Cambridge University, United Kingdom, pp 15–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Griesemer J (2016) Reproduction in complex life cycles: toward a developmental reaction norms perspective. Philos Sci 83:803–815

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurdon JB, Elsdale TR, Fischberg M (1958) Sexually mature individuals of Xenopus laevis from the transplantation of single somatic nuclei. Nature 182:64–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurdon JB (1962) The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from intestinal epithelium cells of feeding tadpoles. J Embryol Exp Morphol 10:622–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall KB (2012) Evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-devo): past, present, and future. Evol Educ Outreach 5:184–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry D (2018) Aristotle on epigenesis two senses of epigenesis. In: Falcon A, Lefebvre D (eds) Aristotle’s generation of animals: a critical guide. Cambridge University, United Kingdom, pp 89–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood N (2019) Inclusion and exclusion in the history of developmental biology. Development 146(7):dev175448. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.175448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis S, Psillos S (2019) Mechanistic causation: difference-making is enough. Teorema 38(3):53–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E, Lamb MJ (2005) Evolution in four dimensions: genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser MI (2015) Reductive explanation in the biological sciences. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearl M (2009) Wilhelm Roux (1850–1924). Embryo Project Encyclopedia. ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/1753.

  • Keller EF (2002) Making sense of life: explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingma E (2018) Lady parts: the metaphysics of pregnancy. R Inst Philos Suppl 82:165–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Krickel B (2018) The mechanical world: the metaphysical commitments of the new mechanistic approach. Springer, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L (1978) Progress and its problems: towards a theory of scientific growth. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L (1996) Beyond positivism and relativism: theory, method, and evidence. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence CR (2010) On the generation of animals, by Aristotle. Embryo Project Encyclopedia (ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/2063)

  • Lewontin R (2000) The triple helix: gene, organism and environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2008) From philosophy to science (to natural philosophy): evolutionary developmental perspectives. Q Rev Biol 83(1):65–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2008) Explaining the ontogeny of form: philosophical issues. In: Sarkar S, Plutynski A (eds) A companion to the philosophy of biology. Blackwell, Malden, pp 223–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2012) Formal and material theories in philosophy of science: a methodological interpretation. In: de Regt HW, Okasha S, Hartmann S (eds) EPSA philosophy of science: Amsterdam 2009 (The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, Vol. 1). Springer, Berlin, pp 175–85

  • Love AC (2014) The erotetic organization of developmental biology. In: Minelli A, Pradeu T (eds) Towards a theory of development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 33–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2017) Developmental mechanisms. In: Glennan S, Illari P (eds) The routledge handbook of mechanisms and mechanical philosophy. Routledge, New York, pp 332–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2020) Developmental biology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020), E. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/biology-developmental/ (Accessed 2020)

  • Macilwain C (2009) Watching science at work. Nature 462:840–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Maienschein J (2000) Competing epistemologies and developmental biology. In: Creath R, Maienschein J (eds) Biology and epistemology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Maienschein J (2003) Whose view of life. Embryos, cloning, and stem cells. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Maienschein J (2005) Epigenesis and Preformationism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), E. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/epigenesis/ (Accessed February 2020)

  • Maienschein J (2014) Embryos under the microscope. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (2003) The development of animal form: ontogeny, morphology, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (2009) Perspectives in animal phylogeny and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (2011) Animal development, an open-ended segment of life. Biol Theory 6(1):4–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (2011) A principle of developmental inertia. In: Halgrímsson B, Hall BK (eds) Epigenetics: linking genotype and phenotype in development and evolution. University of California Press, San Francisco, pp 116–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (2021) Understanding development (Understanding Life). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A, Pradeu T (2014) Theories of development in biology –problems and perspectives. In: Minelli A, Pradeu T (eds) Towards a theory of development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss L (2003) What genes can’t do. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham J (1959) A history of embryology, 2nd ed., with A. Hughes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson DJ (2012) The concept of mechanism in biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43:152–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson DJ (2013) Organisms ≠ machines. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44:669–678

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson DJ (2014) The machine conception of the organism in development and evolution: a critical analysis. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 48:162–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson DJ (2018) Reconceptualizing the organism: from complex machine to flowing stream. In: Nicholson DJ, Dupré J (eds) Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 139–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson DJ (2019) Is the cell really a machine? J Theor Biol 477:108–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick R (2023) Structure and function (elements in the philosophy of biology)

  • Odenbaugh J, Griffiths PE (2002) Philosophy of Biology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/biology-philosophy/>

  • Oppenheimer J (1966) The growth and development of developmental biology. In: Locke M (ed) Major problems in developmental biology, symposia of the society for developmental biology, vol 25. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer J (1975) When sense and life begin: background for a remark in Aristotle’s Politics (1335b24). Arethusa 8:331–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyama S, Griffiths PE, Gray RD (eds) (2001) Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradeu T (2011) A mixed self: the role of symbiosis in development. Biol Theory 6:80–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradeu T (2014) Regenerating theories in developmental biology. In: Minelli A, Pradeu T (eds) Towards a theory of development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradeu T et al (2011) The boundaries of development. Biol Theory 6:1–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradeu T et al (2016) Defining ‘Development.’ Curr Top Dev Biol 117:171–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger H (2000) Gene concepts: Fragments from the perspective of molecular biology. In: Beurton P, Falk R, Rheinberger H (eds) The concept of the gene in development and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 219–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert JS (2004) Embryology, epigenesis, and evolution: taking development seriously. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A (2020) Reduction and Mechanism (Elements in the Philosophy of Biology)

  • Sarkar S (2000) Information in genetics and developmental biology: comments on Maynard Smith. Philos Sci 67(2):208–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott MP, Weiner AJ, Hazelrigg TI, Polisky BA, Pirrotta V, Scalenghe F, Kaufman TC (1983) The molecular organization of the Antennapedia locus of Drosophila. Cell 35:763–776

    Google Scholar 

  • Slack JMW (2013) Essential developmental biology, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith MJ (1998) Shaping life: genes, embryos, and evolution. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Steptoe PC, Edwards RG (1978) Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 12:2(8085):366

  • Sunderland EM (2007) Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch (1867–1941). Embryo Project Encyclopedia. ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/1679.

  • Turing AM (1952) The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 237:37–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Varner VD, Nelson CM (2014) Cellular and physical mechanisms of branching morphogenesis. Development 141:2750–2759

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington CH (2019) Biological development. Encyclopedia Britannica 28 Nov. 2019 (https://www.britannica.com/science/biological-development). (Accessed 31 May 2021.)

  • Wallace A (2014) General theories of evolution and inheritance, but not development? In: Minelli A, Pradeu T (eds) Towards a theory of development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (2022) Philosophy of Developmental Biology. (Elements in the Philosophy of Biology)

  • Weiss P (1957) Developmental biology. Science 126:708–712

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss P (1959) Introduction. Dev Biol 1(1):i–iii

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellner K (2010) Hans Spemann (1869–1941). Embryo Project Encyclopedia. ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/1688.

  • Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J et al (1997) Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385:810–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert L (1969) Positional information and the spatial pattern of cellular differentiation. J Theor Biol 25(1):1–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert L, Tickle C (2011) Principles of development, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert L, Tickle C, Arias AM, Lawrence P, Locke J (2019) Principles of development, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodger JH (1929) Biological principles: a critical study. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J (2003) Making things happen. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. History and Philosophy of Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Pavlos Silvestros

Authors
  1. Pavlos Silvestros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavlos Silvestros.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silvestros, P. An operational definition of biological development. Biol Philos 38, 44 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09932-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09932-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation