Page 141 - Visions of the Future Chemistry and Life Science

130 P. KOHL ET AL.

The same applies to the heart.
No two cells in the heart are exactly the same, but they are all made
of rather similar components. Also, it is possible to study and model the
general ‘traffic rules’ for the spread of the electrical signal that controls
cardiac contraction and pumping, without addressing the workings of the
individual cells that produce the electrical wave. However, this knowledge
alone would be of little help for diagnosis and treatment of major energy
crises like myocardial ischaemia, or heart attack.

8.2 The need for computational modelling in bio-medical
research
8.2.1 What can we learn from Martians?
Well, probably a lot. If they exist. What does exist for sure, though, is the
challenge to understand in detail how the human heart works. And, similar
to the above scenario, among the many different ways to advance this
venture, there are at least two main directions: the top-down and the
bottom-up route. Accordingly, bio-scientists tend to get pigeonholed into
two schools of thought.
‘Reductionism’ is the direction that unites those guys who try to dis-
semble the parts of a biological system, and put them under a microscope
(a laser-scanning quantum-leaping one, of course) to see the sparks of imag-
ination hidden in the least of the components. The under-the-bonnet view,
to stay with the Martian’s analogy.
‘Integrationism’, on the other hand, unites those who pride them-
selves for their holistic view of the complete system, without necessarily
being burdened by a detailed understanding of structure and function of the
minute components that make it work. The up-in-the-air perspective.
Reductionists might say that the division between the two schools of
thought simply runs along the split between ‘thorough’ and ‘not-so-thor-
ough’. Integrationists would probably claim that the divide is nearer the
categories ‘geeky’ and ‘not-so-geeky’.
The two contrasting views were expressed at a higher level of sophis-
tication during a recent Novartis Foundation meeting on The limits of
reductionism in biology by Professor Lewis Wolpert and Professor Gabriel
A. Dover, who said (respectively): ‘. . . there is no good science that doesn’t
have a major element of reductionism in it . . .’, and ‘. . . we have imagined
we have explained something merely by describing its parts, but all we