Cited by 88Philosophy and History of ScienceComplex Systems and DynamicsOrigins and Evolution of Life

Autopoiesis 40 years Later. A Review and a Reformulation

Razeto-Barry, Pablo·2012·Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres

Abstract

The concept of autopoiesis was proposed 40 years ago as a definition of a living being, with the aim of providing a unifying concept for biology. The concept has also been extended to the theory of knowledge and to different areas of the social and behavioral sciences. Given some ambiguities of the original definitions of autopoiesis, the concept has been criticized and has been interpreted in diverse and even contradictory ways, which has prevented its integration into the biological sciences where it originated. Here I present a critical review and conceptual analysis of the definition of autopoiesis, and propose a new definition that is more precise, clear, and concise than the original ones. I argue that the difficulty in understanding the term lies in its refined conceptual subtlety and not, as has been claimed by some authors, because it is a vacuous, trivial or very complex concept. I also relate the concept of autopoiesis to the concepts of closed systems, boundaries, homeostasis, self-reproduction, causal circularity, organization and multicellularity. I show that under my proposed definition the concept of a molecular autopoietic system is a good demarcation criterion of a living being, allowing its general integration into the biological sciences and enhancing its interdisciplinary use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11084-012-9297-y

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Network models such as autopoiesis, which provide only qualitative definitions without explicit kinetics, are inadequate for homeostasis-related scrutiny.

    “Network models such as autopoiesis [33,34], which provide only qualitative definitions without explicit kinetics are inadequate for homeostasis-related scrutiny.”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 130 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Razeto-Barry, P.
Venue
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
Published
2012-10-04
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
543-567
ISSN
  • 0169-6149 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0875
OpenAlex
W2076311205
Cited by
88
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
15.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Systems and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Origins and Evolution of Life
Keywords
autopoiesis, concept of life, living organisms, demarcation criteria, closed systems, boundaries, homeostasis, self-replication, organizations, multicellularity, conceptual analysis
MeSH terms
Models, Biological, Life

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review