The cell: locus or object of inquiry?

Solving the crisis in psychopharmacological research: Cellular-membrane(s) pharmacology to the rescue?

There is an urgent need for the introduction of novel and better (i.e., improved risk-benefit profile) compounds for the treatment of major psychiatric disorders, in particular mood and psychotic disorders. However, despite increased societal awareness and a rising public and professional demand for such agents from patients and physicians, the pharmaceutical industry continues to close down its psychopharmacology research facilities in reaction to the lack of success with the search for new psychotropics. It is high time to stop this untoward trend and explore "new" lines of investigation to solve the current crisis in psychopharmacological research. In line with the prevailing molecular view in drug research in general, also in psychopharmacology mechanistic explanations for drug effects are "traditionally" looked for at the level of molecular targets, like receptors and transporters. Also, more recent approaches, although using so-called systems- and function-based approaches to model the multidimensional characteristics of psychiatric disorders and psychotropic drug action, still emphasize this search strategy for new therapeutic leads by identification of single molecules or molecular pathways. This "psychomolecular gaze" overlooks and disregards the fact that psychotropic agents usually are highly hydrophobic and amphipathic/amphiphilic agents that, in addition to their interaction with membrane-bound proteins in the form of e.g. receptors or transporters, also interact strongly with the lipid component of cellular membranes. Here we suggest to develop a program of systematic, whole-cell level based, investigation into the role of these physical-chemical cellular membrane interactions in the therapeutic action of known psychotherapeutics. This complementary yet conceptually different approach, in our opinion, will complement drug development in psychopharmacology and thereby assist in overcoming the current crisis. In this way the "old" physical theory of drug action, which antedates the current, primary molecular, paradigm may offer "new" options for lead discovery in psychopharmacological research.

Matter, metaphors, and mechanisms: rethinking cell theories

This study analyzes the logical structure of classical cell theory (CCT) by pointing out that CCT conceives the properties of organic cellular matter as supervenient to successively emerging states of quasi-crystalline atoms. This concept supports the design of a metaphorical space the intelligible components of which display an explanatory structure in accordance with the contemporary complex-systems approach of mechanisms. These findings support the thesis of an explanatory turn within the life-sciences due to a conflict between anti-classificatory (Buffon), analogous (Wolff, Reil, Weber), and causal-mechanical (Kepler) strategies of explanation. The continuous process underlying these diverse discontinuities is taken to be the immanent process of objectifying scientific concepts for the need of explanation. This process repeatedly provides concepts which are identified as nomadic concepts. The meta-analysis of their interactions reveals that concepts of matter are obtained by idealizations which entertain one process with three dimensions: atomization originating from empirical classificatory regularities (classification) and aiming at an explanation of changing phenomena (dynamization). These dimensions are successfully incorporated into the explanatory scheme of CCT. The migrations of a second group of nomadic concepts beyond this historical point of transition are made responsible for blurring the explanatory turn.

Surfaces of action: cells and membranes in electrochemistry and the life sciences

The term 'cell', in addition to designating fundamental units of life, has also been applied since the nineteenth century to technical apparatuses such as fuel and galvanic cells. This paper shows that such technologies, based on the electrical effects of chemical reactions taking place in containers, had a far-reaching impact on the concept of the biological cell. My argument revolves around the controversy over oxidative phosphorylation in bioenergetics between 1961 and 1977. In this scientific conflict, a two-level mingling of technological culture, physical chemistry and biological research can be observed. First, Peter Mitchell explained the chemiosmotic hypothesis of energy generation by representing cellular membrane processes via an analogy to fuel cells. Second, in the associated experimental scrutiny of membranes, material cell models were devised that reassembled spatialized molecular processes in vitro. Cells were thus modelled both on paper and in the test tube not as morphological structures but as compartments able to perform physicochemical work. The story of cells and membranes in bioenergetics points out the role that theories and practices in physical chemistry had in the molecularization of life. These approaches model the cell as a 'topology of molecular action', as I will call it, and it involves concepts of spaces, surfaces and movements. They epitomize an engineer's vision of the organism that has influenced diverse fields in today's life sciences.

The redoubtable cell

The cell theory--the thesis that all life is made up of one or more cells, the fundamental structural and physiological unit-is one of the most celebrated achievements of modern biological science. And yet from its very inception in the nineteenth century it has faced repeated criticism from some biologists. Why do some continue to criticize the cell theory, and how has it managed nevertheless to keep burying its undertakers? The answers to these questions reveal the complex nature of the cell theory and the cell concept on which it is based. Like other scientific 'laws', the assertion that all living things are made of cells purchases its universality at the expense of abstraction. If, however, this law is regarded merely as a widely applicable empirical generalization with notable exceptions, it still remains too important to discard. Debate about whether the cell or the organism standpoint provides the more correct account of anatomical, physiological, and developmental facts illustrates the tension between our attempts to express the truth about reality in conceptual terms conducive to a unified human understanding.

The first eukaryote cell: an unfinished history of contestation

The eukaryote cell is one of the most radical innovations in the history of life, and the circumstances of its emergence are still deeply contested. This paper will outline the recent history of attempts to reveal these origins, with special attention to the argumentative strategies used to support claims about the first eukaryote cell. I will focus on two general models of eukaryogenesis: the phagotrophy model and the syntrophy model. As their labels indicate, they are based on claims about metabolic relationships. The first foregrounds the ability to consume other organisms; the second the ability to enter into symbiotic metabolic arrangements. More importantly, however, the first model argues for the autogenous or self-generated origins of the eukaryote cell, and the second for its exogenous or externally generated origins. Framing cell evolution this way leads each model to assert different priorities in regard to cell-biological versus molecular evidence, cellular versus environmental influences, plausibility versus evolutionary probability, and irreducibility versus the continuity of cell types. My examination of these issues will conclude with broader reflections on the implications of eukaryogenesis studies for a philosophical understanding of scientific contestation.