Play all audios:
Access through your institution Buy or subscribe Sir Your leading article of 8 January1 worries about the apparent disregard of biology for Thomas Kuhn's ideas, and seeks an explanation
for biology's growing public profile. The latter is an interesting problem for the sociology of science and deserves attention, the former is an empty issue. Might it not be that
biology does not fit in simply because of major limitations in the Kuhnian conceptual apparatus itself? This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS
Access through your institution Subscribe to this journal Receive 51 print issues and online access $199.00 per year only $3.90 per issue Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on
SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about
institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support REFERENCES * _Nature_ 391, 107 (1998). * Masterman, M. in _Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge_ (eds Lakatos, I.
& Musgrave, A.), 59-89 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970). Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital (Box 189),
CB2 2QQ, Cambridge, UK German E. Berrios Authors * German E. Berrios View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and
permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Berrios, G. Kuhnian pastiche. _Nature_ 391, 326 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/34770 Download citation * Issue Date: 22 January 1998 * DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1038/34770 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently
available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
