Paradigms, introduced by Kuhn in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, are the lenses by which science views the world. A paradigm refers to not only the set of theories but also the entire set of processes, equipment, and measurements used to conduct science (Kuhn 1962). Within a paradigm, there is consensus over the fundamental ideologies, techniques, and methods. A paradigm recognizes the achievements of the past and also defines the range of answers/explanations acceptable within the framework. Without a paradigm, all the facts available to scientists seem equally relevant: There is no discerning guide as to what is important/true. A paradigm thus offers a framework by which science can operate and thrive in. Paradigms permit “esoteric” research, and lay the foundation for normal science to develop (Kuhn 1962). Within a paradigm, there is no room to question the fundamentals.
Analysis of Paradigm shift
Karin and Max read an interesting article on epigenetics. Karin argued: “This is almost too good to believe example of a scientific revolution that happens right here and now. This is a clear affirmation of Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution. Max, however, dryly responded: “If anything, the example of epigenetics calls Kuhn’s argument into question. We don’t see here a revolution but gradual buildup of knowledge!” What do you think? Explain the rise of epigenetics in terms taken from the class reading. What would Popper say about this argument?
When analyzing the rise of epigenetics within Kuhn’s framework we find that although epigenetics resemble anomalies, the neat crisis and paradigm shift that Kuhn describes is markedly different to what occurs in the chaotic scene of science. The case of epigenetics is neither a total paradigm shift nor a gradual buildup of knowledge. Hindsight affords Kuhn an oversimplification of the complexities of scientific crises and paradigm shifts.
DNA is a key component of the current paradigm. Scientists all agree on DNA’s structure and function. Furthermore, there is a consensus that all of the changes in our bodies can be explained by changes in our DNA. Under this paradigm, normal science has flourished. However, when Jirtle and Waterland were able to reduce cancer and diabetes risk in offspring of agouti mice without altering their DNA, the first anomaly in this paradigm appeared (Watters 2006). This was a genuine anomaly because it was happening in labs all over the world. Scientists are now implicating epigenetics in cancer, diabetes, and a wide range of neurodegenerative diseases (Watters 2006).
Kuhn never specifies exactly how anomalies turn into crisis. Instead, he suggests that eventually the anomalies warrant increased attention from scientists. Clearly, this ‘anomaly’ is drawing more attention, with calls for a Human Epigenome Project and increased funding and research being devoted to the study of epigenetics (Watters 2006). However, normal science is not slowing. Our discoveries in the fields of epigenetics do not fully contradict our understanding of DNA. Unlike Kuhn’s clear cut paradigm shift, in the case of DNA and epigenetics, the lines are significantly blurred, calling Kuhn’s theory of incommensurability to question.
When we compare DNA and epigenetics using Kuhn’s framework, we see a significant amount of similarities between the two “paradigms”. Within epigenetics, there is a recognition of past achievements. In order to study expression/suppression of DNA, one must study DNA itself. Thus, epigenetics builds upon the previous paradigm as opposed to being incommensurable with DNA. The important problems within epigenetics also overlap significantly with the problems of DNA. Researchers in both fields are trying to understand complex issues such as neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and hereditary diseases (Watters 2006). The relevant tools and methods for both paradigms are also overlapped: sequencing of DNA, preparation of lab materials, analyzing data would be nearly identical for both epigenetics and DNA.
There is, however, a sharp difference in the range of acceptable answers between the two paradigms. DNA is viewed as the “instructions book for the human body” (Watters 2006). Changes in the human body should therefore be correlated to changes in the “instruction
book” (Watters 2006). To put this in terms of Kuhn, “acceptable answers” for causation of diseases lies solely in changes to ones’ DNA. But within the realm of epigenetics, the environment and interactions with the world around us can greatly affect our genetic legacy. “What you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great- grandchildren” (Watters 2006). This difference introduces a degree of incommensurability: discoveries in epigenetics, like the correlation between green tea or Heliobacter to various cancers, are seen as “scientific humor” to DNA subscribers (Watters 2006).
It is clear that the case of epigenetics requires a level of nuance simply not present in Kuhn’s framework. Paradigm shifts, especially ones happening in real-time, are slower and less clean than the historical examples analyzed by Kuhn. The paradigm of epigenetics and DNA overlaps quite significantly in methods, questions, and fundamental beliefs. Instead of the gestalt shift that Kuhn predicts, we see a much more gradual paradigm shift. Furthermore, this new paradigm is not incommensurable with DNA. There is no refutation of DNA’s past accomplishments; we now believe both epigenetics and DNA are involved in the diseases that we study.
Kuhn’s ideas work much more effectively when analyzing history. Perhaps, in twenty years, with the benefit of hindsight, one will be able to determine if epigenetics truly constitute a paradigm shift or if it is just an expanded scope of the existing paradigm. Analyzing the same issues in real time requires a more nuanced approach, and does not yield a binary yes/no answer. This paradigm is shifting in a messier, more gradual way.
Popper would say that after the agouti mice experiment, having successfully falsified the theory of DNA as the sole “instruction book” of the body, we should have immediately thrown out the current theory and created a new one. This new theory could incorporate the valid parts of DNA with new information obtained through our understanding of epigenetics. According to Popper, this should not be considered as a paradigm shift or a gradual buildup. Rather, it should be the successful falsification and rejection of one theory and the emergence of a new one.
Works Cited:
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press. (Chapters 2, 4, 6, 7, 10).
Merton, Robert. 1973. “The normative structure of science.” Pp. 267-278 in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and empirical Investigations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Popper, Karl. 1963. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations,” pp 33-39; 52-59 in Science: Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Routledge.
Watters, Ethan. 2006. “DNA Is Not Destiny: The New Science of Epigenetics” in Discover November 2006. Digital: Discover Magazine