Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39269598›Full record

ArticleTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2024

Do concepts of individuality account for individuation practices in studies of host-parasite systems? A modeling account of biological individuality.

Nina Kranke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Nina KrankeChair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 76, 79104, Freiburg, Germany. nina.kranke@nature.uni-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1723-6963

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 281125614/GRK2220
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent discussions, the widespread conviction that scientific individuation practices are governed by theories and concepts of biological individuality has been challenged, particularly by advocates of practice-based approaches. This discussion raises questions about the relationship between individuation practices and concepts of individuality. In this paper, I discuss four studies of host-parasite systems and analyze the respective individuation practices to see whether they correspond to established concepts of biological individuality. My analysis suggests that scientists individuate biological systems on different levels of organization and that the researchers' respective emphasis on one of the levels depends on the explanandum and research context as well as epistemic aims and purposes. It thus makes sense to use different concepts of individuality to account for different individuation practices. However, not all individuation practices are represented equally well by concepts of biological individuality. To account for this observation, I propose that concepts of individuality should be understood as abstracted, idealized, or simplified models that represent only certain aspects of scientific practice. A modeling account suggests a pluralistic view of concepts of biological individuality that not only allows the coexistence of different kinds of individuality (e.g., evolutionary individuality, immunological individuality, ecological individuality) but also of normative and descriptive concepts.

Indexed as

Host-Parasite InteractionsIndividualityAnimalsBiological EvolutionHumansModels, BiologicalBiological individualityHost–parasite coevolutionHost–parasite interactionIndividuation practicesModelsPluralism

Identifiers

PMID39269598
PMCPMC11604681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.