Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22796169›Full record

ReviewProgress in biophysics and molecular biology2012

Is information a proper observable for biological organization?

G Longo, P-A Miquel, C Sonnenschein, A M Soto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. From Wingspread to CLARITY: a personal trajectory.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Cancer Metastases: So Close and So Far.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Epigenetics and the evolution of Darwin's Finches.Genome biology and evolution · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

G LongoCREA, Ecole Polytechnique, 32 Boulevard Victor, 75015 Paris, France. Giuseppe.Longo@ens.fr
P-A Miquel
C Sonnenschein
A M Soto

Funding

Mechanisms of developmental toxicity of Bisphenol-AR01ES008314 · NIEHS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SOTO, ANA · 1996 to 2016
$6.8M
Perinatal xenoestrogen exposure: epigenesis and neoplasiaR21ES015182 · NIEHS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SOTO, ANA · 2006 to 2007
$462k
Prenatal xenoestrogen exposure and mammary cancerR21ES012301 · NIEHS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SOTO, ANA · 2005 to 2006
$445k
NIEHS NIH HHS ES012301NIEHS NIH HHS ES015182NIEHS NIH HHS ES08314NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES008314NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES012301NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES015182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last century, jointly with the advent of computers, mathematical theories of information were developed. Shortly thereafter, during the ascent of molecular biology, the concept of information was rapidly transferred into biology at large. Several philosophers and biologists have argued against adopting this concept based on epistemological and ontological arguments, and also, because it encouraged genetic determinism. While the theories of elaboration and transmission of information are valid mathematical theories, their own logic and implicit causal structure make them inimical to biology, and because of it, their applications have and are hindering the development of a sound theory of organisms. Our analysis concentrates on the development of information theories in mathematics and on the differences between these theories regarding the relationship among complexity, information and entropy.

Indexed as

Information TheoryAnimalsBiologyEntropyHumans

Identifiers

PMID22796169
PMCPMC3953560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.