Reductionism in Biology

Reductionism in Molecular Biology

Why It Is Reaching Its Limit

The study of living organism through its most basic components such as atoms, DNAs and proteins, called molecular biology, has been questioned over the years on its methodology. Reductionism is one approach and method of explaining a particular thing (in this case a living organism) through studying the interactions of its parts (chemical and physical). It has been used as the building block in the field of molecular biology since its inception in the early 20th century. However, it is not without opposition. While several prominent biologists and philosophers defend the extensive use of reductionism, a fair share of them also opposes the idea (antireductionist). I find myself to be in favour of antireductionism (also called holism), and in this essay I will explain why it makes more sense in molecular biology. I will start with the difference between a reductionist and an antireductionist, then I will proceed with supporting arguments that defend my view why antireductionism should be applied by pointing out the flaws in using reductionism in molecular biology. Lastly, I will summarize my view and conclude my finding at the end of the essay.

Reductionists believe we are able to explain everything of a complex system through its components (or parts). A clock, for example, can be defined why it moves because of all the cogs and movement inside it. In living organism, a reductionist might say that we are who we are because of all the organs, blood, proteins, atoms and chemical and physical interactions inside us. They see the organism as the sum of its parts; nothing more, nothing less. An antireductionist, however, argue that the whole is more than just the sum of the components. They assert that there is more to living organism than just a lump of organs, blood and bones, because reductionists has so far not yet been able to clearly explain everything through reductionism. Until a few decades...