THE SCIENTIST AS STATESMAN: BIOLOGISTS AND THIRD WORLD HEALTH

One of the most threatening problems the world faces is the growing poverty crisis and the related human rights inequalities and the spread of diseases in underprivileged areas. Human rights and relief organizations try hard to contain the devastation of these interconnected difficulties. What is the role of the biomedical scientist in this endeavor? The challenges that biomedical scientists face in their research lead us to question whether scientists can go beyond the time‐consuming realm of experimental investigation and engage the issues of society in a more public way. I suggest how the scientist's role can be expanded in our complex and precarious world, introducing the idea of the modern biomedical researcher as scientist, scholar‐philosopher, and statesman for the scientific community and the larger human rights community. I provide examples of where the scientist can interface with human rights organizations, medical doctors, political and civic leaders, and the science‐religion dialogue. My argument reveals the emerging role of the biomedical scientist as one of public service in addition to and beyond the realm of the experimental investigator. This role, however, is formidable, and I list some of the obstacles it entails.     

Young Children's Conception of the Biological World

ABSTRACT— What are the components of children's biological-knowledge system before systematic teaching at school? Can this knowledge system be called naive biology? We propose that young children's biological-knowledge system has at least two essential components—(a) the knowledge needed to identify biological entities and phenomena and (b) teleological and vitalistic causality—and that these components constitute a form of biology. We discuss how this naive biology serves as the basis for performance and learning in socially and culturally important practices, such as health practices and biology instruction.     

OVERVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW

Abstract. Understanding the structure of a scientific world view is important for the dialogue between science and religion. In this essay, I define comprehensive worldview and distinguish it from the more focused non comprehensive worldview. I explain that scientists and the public at large agree that modern research works in a scientific as opposed to nonscientific worldview. I give some of the essential elements of any scientific worldview that differentiate it from nonscientific ones. These elements are the general pre suppositions of science, the methods of science, and the articles of justification for the conclusions science puts forward. I question whether a scientific worldview can allow philosophical and theological tenets, which might appear to stand opposed to scientific paradigms, and conclude that the answer lies in the scope of its comprehensiveness.     

TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGY: WHO COULD ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE?

Abstract. Teleological thinking permeates biology and is useful in pondering unanswered biological questions. Such thinking differs from the usual sense of teleology in that “purpose” in biology carries no imputation of causation. A few examples are given. The teleological system of biology is every bit as elegant a construct of the human mind as any other teleological system and in no way precludes spirituality. I argue that it provides a firmer foundation for moral guidance than supernatural systems.     

GOD AS A COMMUNICATIVE SYSTEM SUI GENERIS: BEYOND THE PSYCHIC, SOCIAL, PROCESS MODELS OF THE TRINITY

With an aim to develop a public theology for an age of information media (or media theology), this article proposes a new God-concept: God is a communicative system sui generis that autopoietically processes meaning/information in the supratemporal realm via perfect divine media ad intra (Word/Spirit). For this task, Niklas Luhmann's systems theory is critically appropriated in dialogue with theology. First, my working postmetaphysical/epistemological stance is articulated as realistic operational constructivism and functionalism. Second, a series of arguments are advanced to substantiate the thesis: (1) God is an observing system sui generis ; (2) self-referential communication is divine operation; (3) unsurpassable complexity is divine mystery; (4) supratemporal autopoiesis of meaning is divine processing; (5) agape is the symbolic medium of divine communication. Third, this communicative model of God is developed into a trinitarian theology, with a claim that this model offers a viable alternative beyond the standard (psychic, social, process) models. Finally, some implications of this model are explored for constructive theology (conceiving creation as divine mediatization) and for science-and-religion in terms of derivative models: (1) God as a living system sui generis and (2) God as a meaning system sui generis .     

合成生物学治理的国外经验综述及启示

鉴于合成生物学发展的不确定性及其对人类社会带来的制度、伦理等方面的挑战,提出有效的治理框架至关重要。虽然各国在合成生物学研究领域的地位和预期可能对治理共识的形成造成巨大影响,但通过多主体协作治理,不断推进监管制度改革来应对包括合成生物学等新兴技术的发展问题,即适应性治理,已是国际共识。公共管理的TAPIC框架有助于对合成生物学等新兴领域治理的理解。分析结果表明,各国不同的治理制度、科技发展水平和愿景对其治理影响深刻,必须加强问责制,参与性和完整性因素,以提高各国对新兴技术发展的治理水平。     

Universal Biology Does Not Prescribe Planetary Isolationism

Stephen Hawking’s caution against messaging extraterrestrial intelligence is a claim of universal biology and is probably false.     

合成生物技术伴生风险的刑法规制

合成生物技术的开发和应用潜藏着较大的生物安全风险,既有因人类认知局限而生的客观风险,又有人为故意或过失引发的主观风险。面对合成生物技术对生物安全的严重威胁,现行刑法仅依托零散的相关罪名间接应对,存在针对性不足、规范留有漏洞、事后回应迟延等问题。应对合成生物技术伴生风险需要引入提前预防的理念,这是国家总体安全观的基本要求,也是积极刑法观的自然演绎,更是治理合成生物技术伴生风险的实践需要。具体而言,应以体系性规范取代间接性规制,以事前预防取代事后回应,并借助比例原则防范处罚早期化后出现的制度风险。

     

数据、信息与生命——文特尔生命观研究

人类对“生命是什么”的探索从未停止,而合成生物学正在成为认知与改造生命的重要方式之一,同时深刻地改变着人类的生命观。以活力论与还原论争论作为历史背景,通过系统地回顾和分析“人造生命之父”克雷格·文特尔开展合成基因组实验、染色体移植实验、合成细胞实验的过程与内容,探讨文特尔“生命是一个信息系统”生命观的内涵并且明确文特尔合成生物学成就的科学意义与社会价值,并以此为案例解读合成生物学中涉及的生物安全和生命伦理问题。

     

系统生物学引导阿尔茨海默病治疗新策略

阿尔茨海默病(AD)是一种发生于中老年期的退行性脑神经变性疾病,临床上以进行性智能衰退,伴有人格改变为主要特征.其发病过程涉及许多途径和靶点.现代医学认为脑内胆碱能递质功能紊乱、β-淀粉样蛋白沉积、tau-蛋白过磷酸化、炎症反应以及基因突变等在其发病过程中起着重要作用.治疗方法从胆碱酯酶抑制剂、神经递质受体阻滞剂到补气活血、益精填髓、化痰开窍等中医药疗法不等.但抑制剂、阻滞剂等药物阻滞疗法,从单一环节阻断发病途径,忽略了AD发病的整体复杂性.中医辨证论治从整体观念出发,在宏观上治疗AD,对AD的发病缺乏微观深入研究.AD治疗需要借助于“系统生物学”理论的指导.中西医结合为AD的治疗提供了较为科学、有效的途径和发展空间.