A Computational View of the Historical Controversy on Animal Electricity
Author(s)
Massimiliano Zaniboni*
Affiliation(s)
Department of Biosciences, and Center of Excellence for Toxicological Research (CERT), University of Parma (IT).
Department of Biosciences, and Center of Excellence for Toxicological Research (CERT), University of Parma (IT).
ABSTRACT
A scientific controversy retains often some controversial sides after its fundamentals has well been explained. This is particularly true for the controversy that arose in Italy in the second half of the eighteen century between the anatomist Luigi Galvani, and the physicist Alessandro Volta, around the intrinsic nature of nerve and muscular function. The two scientists were providing, almost simultaneously from the University of Bologna and Pavia respectively, two quite different explanations for the property of muscles of being electrically excitable and contract as a consequence. Science seemed then to touch the very intrinsic mechanism of living processes. Despite the fact that one of the two explanations was explaining better than the other, the weaker mechanism won the battle at the time. The biophysical mechanism of nerve excitability has then been clarified in 1950 by Hodgkin and Huxley, who later won the Nobel prize for their work. They unequivocally showed that Galvani was right and Volta quite wrong. Only specialists though notice that the Galvani-Volta controversy is frequently still thought wrong in schools. In this brief essay I want to show how easy-to-handle computer models can unveil where the subtle source of the controversy was hidden, and how an interdisciplinary approach can help drawing light into the multiple aspects of this extraordinary story.
A scientific controversy retains often some controversial sides after its fundamentals has well been explained. This is particularly true for the controversy that arose in Italy in the second half of the eighteen century between the anatomist Luigi Galvani, and the physicist Alessandro Volta, around the intrinsic nature of nerve and muscular function. The two scientists were providing, almost simultaneously from the University of Bologna and Pavia respectively, two quite different explanations for the property of muscles of being electrically excitable and contract as a consequence. Science seemed then to touch the very intrinsic mechanism of living processes. Despite the fact that one of the two explanations was explaining better than the other, the weaker mechanism won the battle at the time. The biophysical mechanism of nerve excitability has then been clarified in 1950 by Hodgkin and Huxley, who later won the Nobel prize for their work. They unequivocally showed that Galvani was right and Volta quite wrong. Only specialists though notice that the Galvani-Volta controversy is frequently still thought wrong in schools. In this brief essay I want to show how easy-to-handle computer models can unveil where the subtle source of the controversy was hidden, and how an interdisciplinary approach can help drawing light into the multiple aspects of this extraordinary story.
Cite this paper
Zaniboni, M. (2012). A Computational View of the Historical Controversy on Animal Electricity. Creative Education, 3, 1130-1137. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.326169.
Zaniboni, M. (2012). A Computational View of the Historical Controversy on Animal Electricity. Creative Education, 3, 1130-1137. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.326169.
References
[1] Aidley, D. J. (1998). The physiology of excitable cells (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139171182 [2] Bernardi, W. (2001). The controversy over animal electricity in 18th- century Italy: Galvani, Volta, and others. Revue d'Histoire des Sciences, 54, 53-70. [3] Borse, G. J. (1997). Numerical methods with Matlab. Boston, MA: PWS Publishing Company. [4] Bresadola, M. (2008). Animal electricity at the end of the eighteenth century: the many facets of a great scientific controversy. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences: Basic and Clinical Perspectives, 17, 8-32. doi:10.1080/09647040600764787 [5] Fall, C. P., Marland, E. S., Wagner, J. M., & Tyson, J. J. (2010). Computational cell biology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, Inc. [6] Hille, B. (2001). Ionic channels of excitable membranes (3rd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc. [7] Hodgkin, A. L., & Huxley, A. F. (1952a). The dual effect of membrane potential on sodium conductance in the giant axon of Loligo. The Journal of Physiology, 116, 497-506. [8] Hodgkin, A. L., & Huxley, A. F. (1952b). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. The Journal of Physiology, 117, 500-544. [9] Keener, J., & Sneyd, J. (2008). Mathematical physiology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, Inc. [10] Piccolino, M. (1997). Luigi Galvani and animal electricity: Two centuries after the foundation of electrophysiology. Trends in Neurosciences, 20, 443-448. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(97)01101-6 [11] Piccolino, M. (1998). Animal electricity and the birth of electrophysiology: The legacy of Luigi Galvani. Brain Research Bulletin, 46, 381-407. [12] Piccolino, M., & Bresaola, M. (2003). Frogs, electric rays, and sparks. Galvani, Volta, and the animal electricity. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri. [13] Zaniboni M. (2012) Late phase of repolarization is autoregenerative and scales linearly with action potential duration in mammals ventricular myocytes: A model study. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 59, 226-233. doi:10.1109/TBME.2011.2170987
[1] Aidley, D. J. (1998). The physiology of excitable cells (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139171182 [2] Bernardi, W. (2001). The controversy over animal electricity in 18th- century Italy: Galvani, Volta, and others. Revue d'Histoire des Sciences, 54, 53-70. [3] Borse, G. J. (1997). Numerical methods with Matlab. Boston, MA: PWS Publishing Company. [4] Bresadola, M. (2008). Animal electricity at the end of the eighteenth century: the many facets of a great scientific controversy. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences: Basic and Clinical Perspectives, 17, 8-32. doi:10.1080/09647040600764787 [5] Fall, C. P., Marland, E. S., Wagner, J. M., & Tyson, J. J. (2010). Computational cell biology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, Inc. [6] Hille, B. (2001). Ionic channels of excitable membranes (3rd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc. [7] Hodgkin, A. L., & Huxley, A. F. (1952a). The dual effect of membrane potential on sodium conductance in the giant axon of Loligo. The Journal of Physiology, 116, 497-506. [8] Hodgkin, A. L., & Huxley, A. F. (1952b). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. The Journal of Physiology, 117, 500-544. [9] Keener, J., & Sneyd, J. (2008). Mathematical physiology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, Inc. [10] Piccolino, M. (1997). Luigi Galvani and animal electricity: Two centuries after the foundation of electrophysiology. Trends in Neurosciences, 20, 443-448. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(97)01101-6 [11] Piccolino, M. (1998). Animal electricity and the birth of electrophysiology: The legacy of Luigi Galvani. Brain Research Bulletin, 46, 381-407. [12] Piccolino, M., & Bresaola, M. (2003). Frogs, electric rays, and sparks. Galvani, Volta, and the animal electricity. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri. [13] Zaniboni M. (2012) Late phase of repolarization is autoregenerative and scales linearly with action potential duration in mammals ventricular myocytes: A model study. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 59, 226-233. doi:10.1109/TBME.2011.2170987