Representing Biology as Process

这个问题--我们是否应该把世界看作是由本质属性（即哲学术语中的“物质”）静态定义的实体组成的，或者看作是正是因为变化而经历和持续的过程--是一个基本的形而上学二分法，自前苏格拉底以来一直在争论。自从原子论在十七世纪兴起以来，实体观一直主导着以科学为基础的哲学。John Dupré的ERC资助项目，当代生物学的过程本体论，发展了这样一个论点，至少对于生物学来说，这是一个深刻的错误（Dupré 2012：Nicholson and Dupré，in press）。杜普雷认为，生命系统在多个时空尺度上总是动态的，它们的持久性不仅仅是基本属性的持续拥有，而是多个过程精细相互作用的结果。视觉表现对科学实践和交流都是必不可少的。然而，尽管过去绘画在形态学和胚胎学等领域发挥了核心作用，但摄影和数字技术的兴起以及对分子而不是整个生物体的日益重视使绘画实践日益边缘化。在发展完全过程化的生物学过程中，我们面临的一个严重问题是，大多数视觉表征都强烈地暗示着一个静态事物的领域。例如，生物体的呈现将是特定的发育“阶段”，通常是成熟的成体，这混淆了这是发育过程的瞬时阶段的事实。例如，即使像新陈代谢这样明显动态的东西的表示会包括代表时间的箭头，自然的阅读也会是一组固定的事物（化学种类的实例）之间的转换。此外，虽然科学中的视觉图像或“视觉解释”（Tufte 1997）依赖于各种图形设备，从使用视频和摄影到使用计算图形软件，模拟和手绘，但这些制作图像的方法在很大程度上依赖于机械模型（或其对象），这些模型已经与其生产方法交织在一起。韦克菲尔德的研究领域--细胞分裂和有丝分裂--集中体现了绘画在科学实践中的衰落。20年前，作为一名博士生，他的学习主要集中在直接参与，通过显微镜观察和绘制细胞，而他自己的博士生现在则进一步远离，在计算机屏幕上观看细胞的2D表示并打印出屏幕截图。在过去的5年里，他对这一区别的兴趣越来越大，导致与PI的探索性合作，并通过此应用程序，Co-I。安德森多年来的工作突出了生命科学中图形技能下降的认识成本。她研究了科学家使用绘画作为深入了解其主题的方式，并在她自己的实践中，在“同构学”的标题下，她开发了分类方法，突出了跨越动物，矿物和植物传统边界的正式相似之处。这项工作是与各种科学家和博物馆馆长合作进行的，并产生了驻地，展览，讲座和研讨会。在同构项目的基础上，她最近的工作，部分是在与杜普雷的广泛讨论的指导下，开始探索在同构的新标题下表现生物过程的方法。随着人们对以过程为中心的生物学理解的兴趣日益浓厚，本项目将通过艺术、生物学和哲学之间的创新合作，解决对新颖的图像制作实践的需求，以提供更直观的生命系统动态表示。

The question - whether we should think of the world as consisting of entities statically defined by essential properties (i.e. in philosophical jargon, "substances"), or as processes, that undergo and persist precisely because of change - is a fundamental metaphysical dichotomy, debated since the pre-Socratics. Since the rise of atomism in the seventeenth century the substance view has dominated scientifically grounded philosophy. John Dupré's ERC-funded project, A Process Ontology for Contemporary Biology, develops the thesis that for biology, at least, this has been a profound mistake (Dupré 2012: Nicholson and Dupré, in press). Dupré argues that living systems are always dynamic at multiple spatial and temporal scales and their persistence, far from being merely the continued possession of essential properties, is the result of the finely articulated interplay of multiple processes.Visual representation is essential both to the practice and the communication of science. However, whereas drawing in the past played a central role in fields such as morphology and embryology, the rise of photographic and digital technologies and the growing emphasis on molecules as opposed to whole organisms have increasingly marginalized drawing practices. A serious problem faced in the development of a fully processual biology is that most visual representation strongly suggests a realm of static things. For example, the presentation of an organism will be of a particular developmental 'stage', typically the mature adult, which confounds the fact that this is a momentary temporal stage of the developmental process. Even where representation of something as plainly dynamic as metabolism, for example, will include arrows representing time, the natural reading will be of transitions between a fixed array of things (instances of chemical kinds). Moreover, while visual images or 'visual explanations' (Tufte 1997) in science depend on a variety of graphic devices ranging from the use of video, and photography to the use of computational graphic software, simulation and hand-drawing, these means of making images largely depend on mechanistic models (for, or of, their objects) which are already intertwined with their methods of production. The decline of drawing in scientific practice is epitomised by Wakefield's research field, cell division and mitosis. Whereas 20 years ago, as a PhD student, his learning was centred around direct participation, through microscope-based observation and drawing of cells, his own PhD students are now further removed, watching 2D representations of cells on computer screens and printing out screen-shots. For the last 5 years, his interest in this distinction has grown, leading to an exploratory collaboration with the PI and, through this application, the Co-I. Anderson's work over a number of years has highlighted the epistemic costs of the decline of graphic skills in the Life Sciences. She has researched the ways in which scientists have used drawing as a way of developing deep insights into their subject matters, and in her own practice, under the rubric of 'Isomorphology', she has developed classificatory methods that highlight formal parallels cutting across the traditional boundaries of animal, mineral and vegetable. This work has been carried out in collaboration with a variety of scientists and museum curators and has resulted in residencies, exhibitions, talks and workshops.Building on the Isomorphology project, her more recent work, guided in part by extensive discussions with Dupré, has begun to explore ways of representing biological process, under the new rubric of Isomorphogenesis. In line with the growing interest in process-centred understandings of biology, the present project will address the need for novel image-making practices to provide more intuitively dynamic representations of living systems through an innovative collaboration between art, biology and philosophy.