Dans cet article, je soutiens que les métaphores « missile » et « ciblage » dans la recherche sur les médicaments à base de nanoparticules jouent différents rôles. Je soutiens que le « missile » joue un rôle scientifique marginal et un rôle plus central dans la communication, tandis que le « ciblage» est devenu une métaphore organisatrice dans le domaine de la recherche. La raison, je le suggère, est que le ciblage est l’explanandum principal du domaine et que cette (...) métaphore continue d’être pertinente même lorsque la nanomédecine mûrit pour s’attaquer à des problèmes plus complexes. Enfin, je discute des suggestions récentes de nouvelles métaphores axées sur la complexité, et je suggère que le rôle significatif des modèles simplificateurs et le besoin réel de tels modèles peuvent expliquer pourquoi les métaphores de complexité n’ont pas retenu l’attention des chercheurs. (shrink)

Synthetic biology is described as a new field of biotechnology that models itself on engineering sciences. However, this view of synthetic biology as an engineering field has received criticism, and both biologists and philosophers have argued for a more nuanced and heterogeneous understanding of the field. This paper elaborates the heterogeneity of synthetic biology by clarifying the role of design and the variability of design methodologies in synthetic biology. I focus on two prominent design methodologies: rational design and directed evolution. (...) Rational design resembles the design methodology of traditional engineering sciences. However, it is often replaced and complemented by the more biologically-inspired method of directed evolution, which models itself on natural evolution. These two approaches take philosophically different stances to the design of biological systems. Rational design aims to make biological systems more machine-like, whereas directed evolution utilizes variation and emergent features of living systems. I provide an analysis of the methodological basis of these design approaches, and highlight important methodological differences between them. By analyzing the respective benefits and limitations of these approaches, I argue against the engineering-dominated conception of synthetic biology and its “methodological monism”, where the rational design approach is taken as the default design methodology. Alternative design methodologies, like directed evolution, should be considered as complementary, not competitive, to rational design. (shrink)