Underdiagnosed food allergies in children on Medicaid

Abstract

Morphogenesis, the coming-into-being of living organisms, was first described in the 4th century BC by Aristotle, progenitor of biology and embryology. Over the centuries it has been the subject of innumerable commentaries by philosophers, theologians and scientists but no consensus has ever been reached as to its causes. In the late 19th century, along with the emergence of cellular and molecular biology, embryology underwent a renaissance and became a topic of great interest and research. Early on the discipline divided into two opposing factions, those who attempted to explain fetal development on the basis of cellular and molecular mechanisms, and those who invoked the presence of organizing fields. The morphogenic field was first articulated in the early decades of the 20th century by multiple researchers independently of each other. The field became an extremely useful conceptual tool by which to explain a wide range of developmental phenomena. While embryology and genetics originally formed a unified discipline, during the 1930s and 1940s geneticists became progressively skeptical of the field notion. The discovery of the DNA structure by Watson and Crick in the early 1950s decisively settled matters and thereafter the two disciplines pursued different lines of inquiry. After World War II embryology and the field concept went into a decades-long decline. By the 1980s an increasing number of scientists began to critically reexamine the morphogenic field concept and it underwent a second renaissance. In this paper I examine the development and evolution of the field concept, both experimentally and conceptually, and highlight the failure of genetic mechanisms to explain morphogenesis. I provide three instances from the medical literature of developmental phenomena which are only explainable on the basis of morphogenic field dynamics and argue that the field concept must be readmitted into mainstream scientific discourse.