Mechanistic Biology and Radiation Standards

2020 ◽  
Vol 118 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-265
Author(s):  
Wayne M. Glines
Keyword(s):  
2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (24) ◽  
pp. 4997-5017 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNE C. DALZIEL ◽  
SEAN M. ROGERS ◽  
PATRICIA M. SCHULTE

Author(s):  
Günther Witzany

The change could not be more radical. Biology, as a classical natural science, has celebrated numerous successes. Examining its subject matter from a reductionistic, materialistic point of view has led to exceptional knowledge and given rise to dozens of sub-disciplines. Unfortunately, by pursuing such detail, satisfactory answers to central questions – What is life? How did it originate and how do we view ourselves as living beings? – have been lost in a universe of analytical units. Yet not entirely! A transdisciplinary network is evolving: it goes beyond reductionistic biology, beyond vitalism or a rekindled (metaphysical) enchantment of nature. It is increasingly able to provide better answers to these questions than firmly established, traditional, mechanistic biology: (1.) a semiotics that transcends Peirce, James and Morris to serve as a basis for the interpretation of sign processes in biosemiotics (Kull 2005), (2.) developmental biologists, embryologists and epigeneticists who have turned the paradigm “DNA-RNA-Protein-everything else” (Arthur Kornberg) on its head and who try to understand protein bodies as context-dependent interpreters of the genetic text, (3.) a philosophy that reconstructs biology as an understanding social science which describes the rule-governed sign-mediated interactions of cell individuals to mega-populations in their lifeworlds.


2020 ◽  
Vol 60 ◽  
pp. 167-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Hantschel ◽  
Matthew Biancalana ◽  
Shohei Koide
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
James DiFrisco ◽  
Alan C. Love ◽  
Günter P. Wagner

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 212-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary M Jones ◽  
Lorna J Warnock

Purpose – This paper outlines a doctoral internship programme introduced for students researching Mechanistic Biology in the Department of Biology, University of York, UK. The programme forms part of the White Rose Doctoral Training Programme (DTP), a collaboration between the three “White Rose” Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York in the North of England. It provides an analysis of the UK context in which the new biotechnology doctoral internships initiative sits and describes the pilot phase of the Professional Internship for PhD Students (PIPS) programme and the introduction of the full doctoral PIPS internship programme. The purpose of this paper is to examine best practice in the planning and management of internships with particular interest in doctoral programmes, with a discussion on the challenges presented by cognate and non-cognate internships. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses as a case study, the introduction of PIPS for the DTP in Mechanistic Biology, hosted by the White Rose Consortium of Universities (York, Sheffield and Leeds) and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). It also considers good practice from around the world, and relates these to the work-based learning literature. Findings – The paper outlines the processes and resources used to secure PIPS internships, and evaluates their success against BBSRC’s objective to help early career researchers to understand the context of their research and expose them to the range of opportunities available after graduation. The authors describe an initial pilot study, challenges and opportunities provided by the internships and feedback from students in the programme. Research limitations/implications – Though the number of students in the pilot study was very limited, all students had a greater awareness particularly of their leadership, project management, organisational and team working capabilities following the three-month internship and were more receptive to the consideration of careers outside of academia. Originality/value – The authors offer recommendations from their own experiences of initiating these doctoral internships which may be useful to others implementing non-cognate internship programmes at their own institutions, whilst being mindful that programmes in other countries may face different challenges.


Author(s):  
N Sharkey ◽  
A Sharkey

There were several electro-mechanical robots in the period leading up to the birth of the Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science in 1959. The authors examine the rise and fall of the electro-mechanical robot in the early twentieth century. After exploring the roots and uses of the term ‘robot’, a historical survey of the early landmark robots is provided. Some were controlled remotely by wireless radio signals or by selectively operating relays with whistle tones or by converting sound into light. Long before the invention of the modern digital computer, there were robots working autonomously with simple sensing and open-loop control. There were even learning machines. Many of the machines were inspired by and in turn inspired the development of mechanistic biology in the early twentieth century. The article ends with the demise of the electro-mechanical robot as the computer is developed and the new artificial intelligence takes hold.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document