Circadian Rhythms and the Circadian Organization of Living Systems

TLDR

The paper notes that while many organisms provide abundant observations, the fascination with these facts can hinder analytic progress, underscoring the need for a concise explanatory framework. The authors argue that at this stage of circadian rhythm research, bold and explicit theory formation is essential, and that problems must be clearly defined before testing and potentially eliminating theories. They propose to advance analysis by first articulating the problems, then gathering data that tests and likely refines or rejects the proposed theories.

Abstract

The writing of this paper has been influenced by strongly held convictions. This does not concern the validity of the theoretical scheme it offers; it concerns the need at this juncture in the study of "daily" rhythms for bold and explicit theory formation. We are beset rather than blessed with an enormous number of observations about a great diversity of organisms that range from unicellulars through African violets to man. Moreover, the fact that a majority of these observations is highly fascinating is itself a danger—the common danger threatening the biologist of mistaking acquisition of more fascinating facts, and more concrete detail, for analytic progress. To make progress analyzing circadian rhythms we must perceive what the problems are—or rather state what we take them to be—and proceed with accumulation of new information only as it tests, and alas probably eliminates, theory. The low life-expectancy of any detailed explanatory scheme in...