Classificatory theory in data-intensive science: The case of open biomedical ontologies

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 47-65

  Leonelli, Sabina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861553600     PISSN: 02698595     EISSN: 14699281     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2012.653119     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Allen, J. F. 2001. Bioinformatics and discovery: Induction beckons again. BioEssays 23: 104-107.
2. Ashburner, M., C. A. Ball, J. A. Blake, D. Botstein, H. Butler, J. M. Cherry, A. P. Davis, et al. 2000. Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics 25: 25-29.
3. Baclawski, K., and T. Niu. 2006. Ontologies for bioinformatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Bard, J. B. L., and S. Y. Rhee. 2004. Ontologies in biology: Design, applications and future challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics 5: 213-222.
5. Bernard, C. [1855] 1927. An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. New York: Dover.
6. Blake, J. A., and C. J. Bult. 2006. Beyond the data deluge: Data integration and bio-ontologies. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 39: 314-320.
7. Bogen, J., and J. Woodward. 1988. Saving the phenomena. Philosophical Review 97: 303-352.
8. Brazma, A., M. Krestyaninova, and U. Sarkans. 2006. Standards for systems biology. Nature Reviews Genetics 7: 593-605.
9. Brigandt, I. 2009. Natural kinds in evolution and systematics: Metaphysical and epistemological considerations. Acta Biotheoretica 57: 77-97.
10. Brooksbank, C., and J. Quackenbush. 2006. Data standards: A call to action. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology 10: 94-99.
11. Buetow, K. H. 2005. Cyberinfrastructure: Empowering a 'third way' in biomedical research. Science 308: 821-824.
12. Bult, C. J. 2006. From information to understanding: The role of model organism databases in comparative and functional genomics. Animal Genetics 37 (suppl. 1): 28-40.
13. Callebaut, W. 2012. Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science's response to the challenge of big data biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 69-80.
14. Cartwright, N. 1983. How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
15. Chipman, K. C., and A. K. Singh. 2009. Predicting genetic interactions with random walks on biological networks. BMC Bioinformatics 10: 17.
16. Chow-White, P. A., and M. García-Sancho. 2012. Bidirectional shaping and spaces of convergence: Interactions between biology and computing from the first DNA sequencers to global genome databases. Science, Technology, and Human Values 37: 124-164.
17. Creager, A. N. H., E. Lunbeck, and M. N. Wise. 2007. Science without laws: Model systems, cases, exemplary narratives. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.
18. Darden, L. 2006. Theory construction in genetics. In Reasoning in biological discoveries: Essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution, edited by L. Darden, 149-169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Dupré, J. 1993. The disorder of things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. -2001. In defence of classification. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32: 203-219.
21. Dupré, J., and M. A. O'Malley. 2007. Metagenomics and biological ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38: 834-846.
22. Egaña Aranguren, M., S. Bechhofer, P. Lord, U. Sattler, and R. Stevens. 2007. Understanding and using the meaning of statements in a bio-ontology: Recasting the Gene Ontology in OWL. BMC Bioinformatics 8: 57.
23. Evans, J., and A. Rzhesky. 2010. Machine science. Science 329: 399-400.
24. Gene Ontology Consortium. 2004. Minutes of the Gene Ontology content meeting Stanford University, 28-29 August [cited 22 November 2011]. http://www.geneontology.org/GO. meetings.shtml; INTERNET.
25. -2011. Gene Ontology [cited 22 November 2011]. http://www.geneontology. org; INTERNET.
26. Giere, R. N. 1999. Science without laws. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27. Griesemer, J. R. 2006. Theoretical integration, cooperation, and theories as tracking devices. Biological Theory 1: 4-7.
28. Hacking, I. 2002. Historical ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Hamid Tirmizi, S., S. Aitken, D. A. Moreira, C. Mungall, J. Sequeda, N. H. Shah, and D. P. Miranke. 2011. Mapping between the OBO and OWL ontology languages. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 2 (Suppl. 1): S3.
30. Hesse, M. B. 1974. The structure of scientific inference. London: Macmillan.
31. -1980. Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Brighton: Harvester Press.
32. Hey, T., S. Tansley, and K. Tolle. 2009. The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.
33. Hill, D. P., B. Smith, M. S.McAndrews-Hill, and J. A. Blake. 2008. Gene Ontology annotations:What they mean and where they come from. BMC Bioinformatics 9 (suppl. 5): S2.
34. Hoehndorf, R., A. Oellrich, M. Dumontier, J. Kelso, D. Rebholz-Schuhmann, and H. Herre. 2010. Relations as patterns: Bridging the gap between OBO and OWL. BMC Bioinformatics 11: 441.
35. Howe, D.,M. Costanzo, P. Fey, T. Gojobori, L. Hannick,W. Hide, D. P. Hill, et al. 2008. Big data: The future of biocuration. Nature 455: 47-50.
36. Keet, C. M. 2010. Dependencies between ontology design parameters. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 54: 265-284.
37. Kell, D. B., and S. G. Oliver. 2004. Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis? The complementary roles of inductive and hypothesis-driven science in the post-genomic era. BioEssays 26: 99-105.
38. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39. Leonelli, S. 2009. On the locality of data and claims about phenomena. Philosophy of Science 76: 737-749.
40. -2010. Documenting the emergence of bio-ontologies: Or, why researching bioinformatics requires HPSSB. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 32: 105-126.
41. -2012. Making sense of data-driven research in the biological and biomedical sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 1-3.
42. Leonelli, S., and R. A. Ankeny. 2012. Re-thinking organisms: The impact of databases on model organism biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 29-36.
43. Leonelli, S., A. D. Diehl, K. R. Christie, M. A. Harris, and J. Lomax. 2011. How the gene ontology evolves. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 325.
44. Lewis, S. E. 2004. Gene Ontology: Looking backwards and forwards. Genome Biology 6: 103.
45. McAllister, J. W. 1997. Phenomena and patterns in data sets. Erkenntnis 47: 217-228.
46. Mitchell, S. 2003. Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Morgan, M. S., and M. Morrison, eds. 1999. Models as mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Morrison, M. 2000. Unifying scientific theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Müller-Wille, S. 2007. Collection and collation: Theory and practice of Linnaean botany. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38: 541-562.
50. Müller-Wille, S., and I. Charmantier. 2012. Natural history and information overload: The case of Linnaeus. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 4-15.
51. O'Malley, M. A., K. C. Elliott, C. Haufe, and R. M. Burian. 2009. Philosophies of funding. Cell 138: 611-615.
52. Parkhill, J., E. Birney, and P. Kersey. 2010. Genomic information infrastructure after the deluge. Genome Biology 117: 402-404.
53. Pickstone, J. 2000. Ways of knowing: A new history of science, technology and medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54. Regt, H. W. de, S. Leonelli, and K. Eigner. 2009. Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives, edited by H.W. de Regt, S. Leonelli, and K. Eigner. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.
55. Renear, A. H., and C. L. Palmer. 2009. Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science 325: 828-832.
56. Reydon, T. A. C. 2010. Natural kind theory as a tool for philosophy of science. In EPSA epistemology and methodology of science: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, edited by M. Suárez, M. Dorato, and M. Rédei, 245-254. Dordrecht: Springer.
57. Rhee, S. Y., and B. Crosby. 2005. Biological databases for plant research. Plant Physiology 138: 1-3.
58. Schaffner, K. F. 1993. Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
59. Smith, B., M. Ashburner, C. Rosse, J. Bard,W. Bug,W. Ceusters, L. J. Goldberg, et al. 2007. The OBO Foundry: Coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nature Biotechnology 25: 1251-1255.
60. Smith, B., and W. Ceusters. 2010. Ontological realism: A methodology for coordinated evolution of scientific ontologies. Applied Ontology 5: 79-108.
61. Smith, B., W. Ceusters, B. Klagges, J. Köhler, A. Kumar, J. Lomax, C. Mungall, F. Neuhaus, A. L. Rector, and C. Rosse. 2005. Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology 6: R46.
62. Strasser, B. J. 2011. The experimenter's museum: GenBank, natural history, and the moral economies of biomedicine. Isis 102: 60-96.
63. Vernon, A., and S. S. Paracer. 2000. Symbiosis: An introduction to biological associations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64. Wylie, A. 2002. Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press.