Unexpected Discoveries Should Be Reconsidered in Science-A Look to the Past?

Seminatural environments for rodent behavioral testing: a representative design improving animal welfare and enhancing replicability

The low replicability of scientific studies has become an important issue. One possible cause is low representativeness of the experimental design employed. Already in the 1950's, Egon Brunswick pointed out that experimental setups ideally should be based on a random sample of stimuli from the subjects' natural environment or at least include basic features of that environment. Only experimental designs satisfying this criterion, representative designs in Brunswikian terminology, can produce results generalizable beyond the procedure used and to situations outside the laboratory. Such external validity is crucial in preclinical drug studies, for example, and should be important for replicability in general. Popular experimental setups in rodent research on non-human animals, like the tail suspension test or the Geller-Seifter procedure, do not correspond to contexts likely to be encountered in the animals' habitat. Consequently, results obtained in this kind of procedures can be generalized neither to other procedures nor to contexts outside the laboratory. Furthermore, many traditional procedures are incompatible with current notions of animal welfare. An approximation to the natural social and physical context can be provided in the laboratory, in the form of a seminatural environment. In addition to satisfy the basic demands for a representative design, such environments offer a far higher level of animal welfare than the typical small cages. This perspective article will briefly discuss the basic principles of the generalizability of experimental results, the virtues of representative designs and the coincidence of enhanced scientific quality and animal welfare provided by this kind of design.

Scientific novelty beyond the experiment

Practical experiments drive important scientific discoveries in biology, but theory-based research studies also contribute novel-sometimes paradigm-changing-findings. Here, we appraise the roles of theory-based approaches focusing on the experiment-dominated wet-biology research areas of microbial growth and survival, cell physiology, host-pathogen interactions, and competitive or symbiotic interactions. Additional examples relate to analyses of genome-sequence data, climate change and planetary health, habitability, and astrobiology. We assess the importance of thought at each step of the research process; the roles of natural philosophy, and inconsistencies in logic and language, as drivers of scientific progress; the value of thought experiments; the use and limitations of artificial intelligence technologies, including their potential for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research; and other instances when theory is the most-direct and most-scientifically robust route to scientific novelty including the development of techniques for practical experimentation or fieldwork. We highlight the intrinsic need for human engagement in scientific innovation, an issue pertinent to the ongoing controversy over papers authored using/authored by artificial intelligence (such as the large language model/chatbot ChatGPT). Other issues discussed are the way in which aspects of language can bias thinking towards the spatial rather than the temporal (and how this biased thinking can lead to skewed scientific terminology); receptivity to research that is non-mainstream; and the importance of theory-based science in education and epistemology. Whereas we briefly highlight classic works (those by Oakes Ames, Francis H.C. Crick and James D. Watson, Charles R. Darwin, Albert Einstein, James E. Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Gilbert Ryle, Erwin R.J.A. Schrödinger, Alan M. Turing, and others), the focus is on microbiology studies that are more-recent, discussing these in the context of the scientific process and the types of scientific novelty that they represent. These include several studies carried out during the 2020 to 2022 lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic when access to research laboratories was disallowed (or limited). We interviewed the authors of some of the featured microbiology-related papers and-although we ourselves are involved in laboratory experiments and practical fieldwork-also drew from our own research experiences showing that such studies can not only produce new scientific findings but can also transcend barriers between disciplines, act counter to scientific reductionism, integrate biological data across different timescales and levels of complexity, and circumvent constraints imposed by practical techniques. In relation to urgent research needs, we believe that climate change and other global challenges may require approaches beyond the experiment.

Scientific Discoveries Supporting Theories in Science: From Thinking to Practice

The idea to propose this ambitious title for a Special Issue in the International Journal of Molecular Science came, on one hand, from my personal experience in research in medicine, lasting 41 years, which has often been inspired by chance [...].

New hypotheses for cancer generation and progression

Since Nixon famously declared war on cancer in 1971, trillions of dollars have been spent on cancer research but the life expectancy for most forms of cancer is still poor. There are many reasons for the partial success of cancer translational research. One of these can be the predominance of certain paradigms that potentially narrowed the vision in interpreting cancer. The main paradigm to explain carcinogenesis is based on DNA mutations, which is well interpreted by the somatic mutation theory (SMT). However, a different theory claims that cancer is instead a tissue disease as proposed by the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT). Here, we propose new hypotheses to explain the origin and pathogenesis of cancer. In this perspective, the systemic-evolutionary theory of cancer (SETOC) is discussed as well as how the microenvironment affects the adaptation of transformed cells and the reversion to a unicellular-like or embryo-like phenotype.

Warburg and Beyond: The Power of Mitochondrial Metabolism to Collaborate or Replace Fermentative Glycolysis in Cancer

A defining hallmark of tumor phenotypes is uncontrolled cell proliferation, while fermentative glycolysis has long been considered as one of the major metabolic pathways that allows energy production and provides intermediates for the anabolic growth of cancer cells. Although such a vision has been crucial for the development of clinical imaging modalities, it has become now evident that in contrast to prior beliefs, mitochondria play a key role in tumorigenesis. Recent findings demonstrated that a full genetic disruption of the Warburg effect of aggressive cancers does not suppress but instead reduces tumor growth. Tumor growth then relies exclusively on functional mitochondria. Besides having fundamental bioenergetic functions, mitochondrial metabolism indeed provides appropriate building blocks for tumor anabolism, controls redox balance, and coordinates cell death. Hence, mitochondria represent promising targets for the development of novel anti-cancer agents. Here, after revisiting the long-standing Warburg effect from a historic and dynamic perspective, we review the role of mitochondria in cancer with particular attention to the cancer cell-intrinsic/extrinsic mechanisms through which mitochondria influence all steps of tumorigenesis, and briefly discuss the therapeutic potential of targeting mitochondrial metabolism for cancer therapy.