Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-zv5th Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-11T12:48:59.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure and Function of Experimental Control in the Life Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jutta Schickore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a new framework for the analysis of experimental control. The framework highlights different functions for experimental controls in the realization of an experiment: experimental controls that serve as tests and experimental controls that serve as probes. The approach to experimental control proposed here can illuminate the constitutive role of controls in knowledge production, and it sheds new light on the notion of exploratory experimentation. It also clarifies what can and what cannot be expected from reviewers of scientific journal articles giving feedback on experimental controls.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 203 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I wrote this article while I was a member of the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton, NJ). I am most grateful for the institute’s support of my work. Discussions with Ann-Sophie Barwich, Stuart Firestein, Stephan Güttinger, Miriam Solomon, and students and researchers at the Center for Science and Society at Columbia University (New York) and at the Consortium for the History of Science/Greater Philadelphia Philosophy Consortium (Philadelphia) helped me to develop my ideas on experimental control. I also wish to thank two anonymous referees for Philosophy of Science for their helpful comments on the penultimate version of this article.

References

Amici, Raffaele Roncalli. 2001. “The History of Italian Parasitology.” Veterinary Parasitology 98:3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, R. N., Born, D., Lawton, T. J., and Hamilton, G. E.. 2015. “Protocols for Purifying and Characterizing Integral Membrane AlkB Enzymes.” In Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology Protocols, ed. McGenity, T., Timmis, K., and Nogales, B., 133–47. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bechtel, Bill. 2006. Discovering Cell Mechanisms: The Creation of Modern Cell Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boring, Edwin Garrigues. 1954. “The Nature and History of Experimental Control.” American Journal of Psychology 67:573–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowditch, William Renwick. 1867. The Analysis, Technical Valuation, Purification, and Use of Coal Gas. London: Spon.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2010. “What Are Randomised Controlled Trials Good For?” Philosophical Studies 147:59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceulemans, Tobias, Bodé, Samuel, Bollyn, Jessica, Harpole, Stanley, Coorevits, Kristin, Peeters, Gerrit, Acker, Kasper Van, Smolders, Erik, Boeckx, Pascal, and Honnay, Olivier. 2017. “Phosphorus Resource Partitioning Shapes Phosphorus Acquisition and Plant Species Abundance in Grasslands.” Nature Plants 3 (16224): 1–7..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, Iain. 2001. “Comparing Like with Like: Some Historical Milestones in the Evolution of Methods to Create Unbiased Comparison Groups in Therapeutic Experiments.” International Journal of Epidemiology 30:1156–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Hasok. 2011. “Beyond Case Studies: History as Philosophy.” In Integrating History and Philosophy of Science: Problems and Prospects, ed. Mauskopf, Seymour and Schmaltz, Ted, 109–24. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 1875. Insectivorous Plants. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles, and Darwin, Francis. 1880. The Power of Movement in Plants. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67:559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Peter M. 1997. “James Lind (1716–94) of Edinburgh and the Treatment of Scurvy.” Archives of Disease in Childhood 76:F64–F65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Ronald Aylmer. 1942. “The Theory of Confounding in Factorial Experiments in Relation to the Theory of Groups.” Annals of Eugenics 11:341–53.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1989. “The Epistemology of Experiment.” In The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, ed. Gooding, David, Pinch, Trevor, and Schaffer, Simon, 437–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 2016. What Makes a Good Experiment? Reasons and Roles in Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Allan, and Perovic, Slobodan. 2016. “Experiment in Physics.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/physics-experiment/.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 1989. “Survival of the Fittest Probabilist: Brunswik, Thurstone, and the Two Disciplines of Psychology.” In The Probabilistic Revolution: Ideas in Science, ed. Krüger, Lorenz, Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Morgan, Mary S., 49–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1988. “Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design.” Isis 79:427–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankin, E. H. 1890. “A Cure for Tetanus and Diphtheria.” Nature 43:121–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Wenjuan, and Hall, Steven J.. 2017. “Elevated Moisture Stimulates Carbon Loss from Mineral Soils by Releasing Protected Organic Matter.” Nature Communications 8 (1774): 1–10..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keating, Peter, and Cambrosio, Alberto. 2012. Cancer on Trial. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kinzel, Katharina. 2015. “Narrative and Evidence: How Can Case Studies from the History of Science Support Claims in the Philosophy of Science?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 49:48–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackie, John Leslie. 1974. The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Maia, Luisa B., and Moura, José J. G.. 2016. “Detection of Nitric Oxide by Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: Spin-Trapping with Iron-Dithiocarbamates.” In Plant Nitric Oxide: Methods and Protocols, ed. Gupta, Kapuganti Jagadis, 81–102. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. 1996. Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCartney, Eugene S. 1942. “A Control Experiment in Antiquity.” Classical Weekly 36:5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1843/2006. Collected Works. Vol. 8, A System of Logic. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Morabia, Alfredo. 2011. “History of the Modern Epidemiological Concept of Confounding.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 65:297–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, James. 1893. A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. Vol. 2, C. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Nature Cell Biology. 2017. “Principles of Refereeing.” Nature Cell Biology 19:1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nature Methods. 2017. “Pen before Pipette.” Nature Methods 14:929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1934/2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rowbottom, Darrell P. 2016. “Extending the Argument from Unconceived Alternatives: Observations, Models, Predictions, Explanations, Methods, Instruments, Experiments, and Values.” Synthese 193. doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1132-y.Google Scholar
Sauer, Tilmann, and Scholl, Raphael, eds. 2016. The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies. Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth. 1983. “Clinical Trials: The Validation of Theory and Therapy.” In Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum, ed. Cohen, R. S. and Laudan, Larry, 191–208. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickore, Jutta. 2016. “‘Exploratory Experimentation’ as a Probe into the Relation between Historiography and Philosophy of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 55:20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickore, Jutta. 2018. “Explication Work for the Sciences.” Journal of the Philosophy of History 12:191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staley, Kent W. 2004. “Robust Evidence and Secure Evidence Claims.” Philosophy of Science 71:467–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich. 2002. “Experiments in History and Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science 10:408–32.Google Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich. 2006. “Concept Formation and the Limits of Justification: ‘Discovering’ the Two Electricities.” In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, ed. Schickore, Jutta and Steinle, Friedrich, 183–95. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
VanderWeele, Tyler J., and Shpitser, Ilya. 2013. “On the Definition of a Confounder.” Annals of Statistics 41:196–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, Marcel. 2005. Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1897. The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, a Work of Universal Reference in All Departments of Knowledge with a New Atlas of the World. vol. 2. New York: Century.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 2009. “Agency and Interventionist Theories.” In The Oxford Handbook of Causation, ed. Beebee, Helen, Hitchcock, Christopher, and Menzies, Peter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar