Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDietrich, M
dc.contributor.authorAnkeny, R
dc.contributor.authorCrowe, N
dc.contributor.authorGreen, S
dc.contributor.authorLeonelli, S
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-17T10:24:58Z
dc.date.issued2019-12-26
dc.description.abstractDespite August Krogh’s famous admonition that a ‘convenient’ organism exists for every biological problem, we argue that appeals to ‘convenience’ are not sufficient to capture reasoning about organism choice. Instead, we offer a detailed analysis based on empirical data and philosophical arguments for a working set of twenty criteria that interact with each other in the highly contextualized judgements that biologists make about organism choice. We propose to think of these decisions as a form of ‘differential analysis’ where researchers weigh multiple criteria for organismal choice against each other, and often utilize multidimensional refinement processes to finalize their choices. The specific details of any one case make it difficult to draw generalizations or to abstract away from specific research situations. However, this analysis of criteria for organismal choice and how these are related in practice allows us to reflect more generally on what makes a particular organism useful or ‘good.’en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipAustralian Research Councilen_GB
dc.identifier.citationArticle 101227en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101227
dc.identifier.grantnumberDP160102989en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/39251
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.rights© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/)en_GB
dc.subjectorganismsen_GB
dc.subjectorganismal choiceen_GB
dc.subjectKrogh Principleen_GB
dc.subjectresearch designen_GB
dc.subjectexperimentationen_GB
dc.subjectresearch materialsen_GB
dc.subjectmodel organismsen_GB
dc.titleHow to choose your research organismen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-10-17T10:24:58Z
dc.identifier.issn1369-8486
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open acccess from Elsevier via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciencesen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-10-16
exeter.funder::Australian Research Councilen_GB
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-10-16
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-10-16T16:49:09Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2020-02-14T11:35:44Z
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/)