Archives of 2025 in english

  1. Le défi épistémologique de l’intégration entre la systématique et le reste de la biologie

    La systématique donne, de fait, le système de référence de la biologie permettant de désigner ses objets, mais cet état de fait manque d'une intégration conceptuelle, épistémologique et méthodologique. Des domaines comme la génétique des population, l'écologie théorique, la biologie moléculaire ou la biologie des systèmes, en effet, s'appuient sur les relations causales synchroniques chez les être vivants. Ceci est particulièrement clair lorsque l'on considère leurs modèles mathématiques, largement hérités de la physique pour ce qui est de leurs structures et de leurs épistémologies. Surmonter cet obstacle épistémologique suppose de repenser le cadre théorique de la biologie comme un cadre épistémologiquement hybride, entre cadre historique et cadre relationnelle et synchronique, et de développer une écriture théorique et des méthodes adaptées.

  3. Spherical cows and bipedal goats: Perspectives on mathematical models in biology

    • R Batista
      R Batista
      ,
      M Montévil
      M Montévil
      &
      A Robert
      A Robert
      .
    • en
    • Amphi Jaurès, 29 rue d'Ulm, École Normale Supérieure

    This event aims to take a step back and reflect on everyday mathematical modeling. We aim to organize a discussion on the diversity of this practice in biology and the homologies in current models. We wish to center those discussions around two related problems. First, given that the general reference system of biology builds on a notion of novelty to classify living beings, how can we use mathematical structures (using predefined spaces of possibilities) to describe living beings while avoiding contradiction? Is it reasonable that many of these practices do not even consider the organization of the organisms? Second, if models can be considered as instruments that contribute to shaping scientific reasoning, is their inscription within broader theoretical frameworks (not) necessary? Are data-based approaches sufficient to understand the living, or should theoretical and methodological jumps be performed? Is the perspective of the National Research Council sound when it states that not all New Biologists are now, or will in the future be, biologists? How to take mathematics and modelling seriously and, at the same time, avoid the disruption of biological knowledge by the fetishization of those tools?

  4. Disruptions in biology: Theorizing a hallmark of the anthropocene

    Biologists often use the term "disruption" informally to describe the effects of detrimental anthropogenic causes. A proper concept of disruption should be distinct from perturbations or, in ecology, from generic disturbances. We illustrate this with examples from ecology, using the case of plant-pollinator networks, from organismal biology, with endocrine disruptors, and at the interface of psychological and cognitive development with digital media and young children. Specifically, we argue that understanding disruptions requires the articulation of historical and relational reasoning. The object of disruption, such as endocrine regulation or seasonal synchrony between plants and pollinators, is a specific property coming from history that is disturbed in a new, random way, leading to a loss or degradation of this specificity. Moreover, initially, this specificity plays a specific relational role, typically a functional one. This role is lost or impaired by the disruption, which explains the disorganization characteristic of disruptions. In our view, however, disruptions are a normal part of the evolutionary process. What is severely detrimental in the Anthropocene is the accumulation of disruptions at a pace that exceeds the ability of living entities to overcome them.

  5. Theory and theorization in the sciences

    To a large extent, the question of theoretical frameworks in the sciences has been neglected (or poorly treated) in philosophy. In parallel, we argue that scientists themselves are currently neglecting this question, and we will show the consequences of this situation in biology. We will then provide elements of the definition of scientific theories, which are partly grounded in the activity of theorization itself. We will articulate this discussion with the question of the function of theories and theorization in the sciences.

  6. Quantitative analysis of endocrine disruption by ketoconazole and diethylstilbestrol in rat mammary gland development

    Quantitative analysis of endocrine disruption by ketoconazole and diethylstilbestrol in rat mammary gland development

    Reproductive Toxicology

    we look into the effect of endocrine disruptors on rat mammary glands

    Abstract

    Endocrine disruptors alter mammary gland development, impair the ability to nourish offspring, and increase the cancer risk in animal models. Epidemiological studies reveal trends towards early mammary development, nursing problems, and breast cancer in younger women. Morphological changes in mouse postnatal mammary gland development are considered sensitive markers of endocrine disruption. While the mouse mammary gland is easily amenable to morphometric measurements from the fetal stage to full maturity, the rat mammary gland grows more conspicuously into the third dimension, hindering conventional morphometric analysis. However, since rats are more commonly used in international toxicological reproductive studies, it would be beneficial to include mammary gland whole-mount analysis in these studies. Using our quantitative software to perform computer-driven analysis of the rat mammary epithelium we examined the effects of gestational and postnatal exposure to ketoconazole, an antifungal medication that affects steroidogenesis, and to the estrogen diethylstilbestrol in the mammary glands of 6- and 22-day-old females. Both treatments produced effects at both ages; the epithelium was smaller and less complex in exposed animals compared to controls. Global analysis with the permutation test showed that morphological evaluation of the PND22 mammary gland is sensitive to endocrine disruption and possibly non-monotonic. In addition to revealing that ketoconazole altered the mammary gland structure, these results suggest that for future toxicology studies, day 22 (at weaning) is more suitable than day 6 because it showed significant measurements and trends. If the collection of mammary glands is added to existing international test methods, PND22 could be a relevant time point.

    Keywords: Ketoconazole, Diethylstilbestrol, endocrine disruptors, perinatal exposure, mammary gland whole mount

    Citation
    Montévil, Maël, Cheryl Schaeberle, Julie Boberg, Sofie Christiansen, and Ana M. Soto. 2025. “Quantitative Analysis of Endocrine Disruption by Ketoconazole and Diethylstilbestrol in Rat Mammary Gland Development.” Reproductive Toxicology 135 (August): 108929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.108929
    Manuscript Citation Publisher Full text
  7. How does randomness shape the living?

    How does randomness shape the living?

    Figures of chance II chance: In theory and practice

    In biology, randomness is a critical notion to understand variations; however this notion is typically not conceptualized precisely. Here we provide some elements in that direction.

    Abstract

    Physics has several concepts of randomness that build on the idea that the possibilities are pre-given. By contrast, an increasing number of theoretical biologists attempt to introduce new possibilities, that is to say, changes of possibility space – an idea already discussed by Bergson and that was not genuinely pursued scientifically until recently (except, in a sense, in systematics, i.e, the method to classify living beings).
    Then, randomness operates at the level of possibilities themselves and is the basis of the historicity of biological objects. We emphasize that this concept of randomness is not only relevant when aiming to predict the future. Instead, it shapes biological organizations and ecosystems. As an illustration, we argue that a critical issue of the Anthropocene is the disruption of the biological organizations that natural history has shaped, leading to a collapse of biological possibilities.

    Citation
    Montévil, Maël. 2025. “How Does Randomness Shape the Living?” In Figures of Chance II Chance: In Theory and Practice, edited by Anne Duprat and Alison James, 477–531. London / New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003329060-4
    Manuscript Citation Publisher Full text

  8. Disruptions: A specific kind of disorganization

    Biologists often use the term disruption more or less informally; however, this notion is increasingly used to describe the effects of detrimental anthropogenic causes. We argue that disruptions are distinct from perturbations or, in ecology, from generic disturbances. We illustrate this with examples from ecology using the case of plant-pollinator networks and organismal biology with endocrine disruptors. Specifically, we argue that understanding disruptions requires the articulation of historical and relational reasoning. The object of disruption, such as endocrine regulation or seasonal synchrony between plants and pollinators, is a specific property coming from history that is disturbed in a new way, leading to a loss or degradation of this specificity. Moreover, initially, this specificity plays a specific relational role, typically a functional one. This role is lost or impaired by the disruption which explains the disorganization characteristic of disruptions. In our view, however, disruptions are normal processes in evolution. What is severely detrimental is the current accumulation of disruptions at a pace that exceeds living entities' ability to overcome them.

  9. Concepts and principles for the new biology: Development, disruption and normalization

    During the first 25 years of the 21st century, we witnessed a resurgence of Organicism. This process is characterized by the return of the organism as a central biological entity and the increasing investigation on purpose and normativity at this level.
    Simultaneously, the issue of the vulnerabilities of living beings and their numerous disruptions is escalating in urgency. The need to comprehend these disruptions, and how living beings adapt to them, is pressing. Organicism, with its systemic approach to disruptions and its focus on organisms’ normativity, is the most suitable framework for this understanding.
    In this session, we will:
    1) explore the epistemological role played by the morphogenetic field concept in the studies on the etiology of tumors in the early 20th century and its resurgence in the organicist conception of cancer as development gone awry (presented by Claudia Gadaleta, Paris 1 Sorbonne Panthéon - IHPST, Paris, France),
    2) argue that a properly fleshed-out concept of disruption describes the effects of a significant category of detrimental anthropogenic causes in organisms and ecosystems. Understanding disruptions requires articulating historical and relational reasoning, which is a hallmark of recent theoretical developments (presented by Maël Montévil, Centre Cavaillès, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France)
    3) argue that disruption causes a loss of function. The organismal agency may overcome disruption by acquiring novel functions, a process we call normalization. We will discuss two examples: i) how young quadrupeds that lost the function of their forelimbs teach themselves to walk as bipeds, and ii) cancer, a disease usually perceived as irreversible but known to regress spontaneously by normalization (presented by Ana Soto, Tufts University, USA and Centre Cavaillès, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France).

  12. Comment le hasard façonne le vivant ?

    Comment le hasard façonne le vivant ?

    Le hasard. Littérature, arts, sciences, philosophie

    En biologie, le hasard est une notion essentielle pour comprendre les variations ; cependant, cette notion n'est généralement pas conceptualisée avec précision. Nous apportons ici quelques éléments allant dans ce sens.

    Abstract

    La physique possède plusieurs concepts de hasard qui reposent néanmoins tous sur l’idée que les possibilités sont données d’avance. En revanche, un nombre croissant de biologistes théoriciens cherchent à introduire la notion de nouvelles possibilités, c’est-à-dire des modifications de l’espace des possibles - une idée déjà discutée par Bergson et qui n’a pas été véritablement poursuivie scientifiquement jusqu’à récemment (sauf, en un sens, dans la systématique, c’est-à-dire la méthode de classification des êtres vivants).
    Alors, le hasard opère au niveau des possibilités elles-mêmes et est à la base de l’historicité des objets biologiques. Nous soulignons que ce concept de hasard n’est pas seulement pertinent lorsqu’on cherche à prédire l’avenir. Au contraire, il façonne les organisations biologiques et les écosystèmes. À titre d’illustration, nous soutenons qu’une question cruciale de l’Anthropocène est la disruption des organisations biologiques que l’histoire naturelle a structurées, conduisant à un effondrement des possibilités biologiques.

    Citation
    Montévil, Maël. 2025. “Comment Le Hasard Façonne Le Vivant ?” In Le Hasard. Littérature, Arts, Sciences, Philosophie, edited by Anne Duprat, Fiona McIntosh‑Varjabédian, Anne‑Gaëlle Weber, and Alison James, 505–16. Paris, France: CNRS Éditions. https://www.cnrseditions.fr/catalogue/philosophie-et-histoire-des-idees/le-hasard/
    Manuscript Citation Publisher Full text
  13. Disruption of biological processes in the anthropocene: The case of phenological mismatch

    Disruption of biological processes in the anthropocene: The case of phenological mismatch

    Acta Biotheoretica

    Biologists are increasingly documenting anthropogenic disruptions, both at the organism and ecosystem levels, indicating that these disruptions are a fundamental, qualitative component of the Anthropocene.

    Abstract

    Biologists are increasingly documenting anthropogenic disruptions, both at the organism and ecosystem levels, indicating that these disruptions are a fundamental, qualitative component of the Anthropocene. Nonetheless, the notion of disruption has yet to be theorized. Informally, disruptions are direct or indirect consequences of specific causes that impair the contribution of parts of living systems to their ability to last over time. To progress in this theorization, we work here on a particular case. Even relatively minor temperature changes can significantly impact plant-pollinator synchrony, disrupting mutualistic interaction networks. Understanding this phenomenon requires a specific rationale since models describing it use both historical and systemic reasoning. Specifically, history justifies that the ecosystem initially exists in a very narrow part of the possibility space where all its populations are viable, and the disruption leads to a more generic configuration where some populations are not viable. Building on this rationale, we develop a mathematical schema inspired by Boltzmann’s entropy, apply it to this situation, and provide a technical definition of disruption.

    Citation
    Manuscript Citation Publisher Full text
  14. Towards a new industrial revolution? Entropy and its challenges

    Towards a new industrial revolution? Entropy and its challenges

    Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology

    Below is a podcast and transcript of the interview concerning the 1st chapter of the book Bifurquer

    Abstract

    This is a transcribed and translated  a podcast of the interview concerning the 1st chapter of the book Biurquer: Il n’y a pas d’alternative (Bifurcate: There Is No Alternative) on the scientific, technological and political stakes of the notion of entropy. The discussion took place between Bernard Stiegler, Maël Montévil, Marie Chollat-Namy and Victor Chaix, on the 1st of July 2020.

    Citation
    Stiegler, Bernard, Maël Montevil, Victor Chaix, and Marie Chollat-Namy. 2025. “Towards a New Industrial Revolution? Entropy and Its Challenges.” Edited by Joel White. Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology 2 (2): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.54195/technophany.19608
    Manuscript Citation Publisher Full text