Happy days here again?

theory simply because no test tubes are involved: most computational biology, including most of the things my group does, is really computational experiment. Genuine theory, where theoretical models are built and pitted against observations, is on the rise too, but I do not think it will ever be as important in biology as it is in physics. This is because many crucial aspects of biological systems, the products of interplay between mutation and selection, may lend themselves to description and generalizations, but not to derivation from a small set of simple principles. Is science a social construct or a quest for objective knowledge? To a very large extent, it is a social construct in the sense that what is recognized as important research and funded is determined by criteria that can hardly be considered scientific. The role of scientific establishment and fashion in the development of science is huge as is the influence of social factors outside science. Another crucial matter is the language we use to make scientific statements. I think it is useful to deconstruct this language in order to try and see which statements are about the Universe and which are just about language. All that being said, the current advances in objective knowledge are quite amazing. Are philosophy and the history of science important for scientists? To me at least, they definitely are. The works of several 20th century philosophers help me to understand better what I am doing. History of science also is of great value. It is almost like the tree of life: the big branches are relatively stable, but most of the twigs have dried and died, often because they were indeed fruitless, but sometimes simply because growth in other parts of the tree overshadowed them. It is sometimes instructive to look back at forgotten research directions and disputes of old. The late 1960s were happy days for a biological theoretician. The monumental early discoveries of molecular biology were still fresh in people's minds, and it was hoped that the further ramparts of biology — development and neuroscience — would yield to the speculative, model-building approach that had just proved so brilliantly successful. I possess a relic of those times: the proceedings of a series of meetings at the Rockefeller's Villa Serbelloni entitled 'Towards a Theoretical Biology'. On the inside covers of the volumes are photographs of eminent scientists marshalled around a grand …