When the term ‘systems biology’ began to spread its wings within the life sciences around the turn of this century, the suggestion to introduce systems theory to biological research was not without antecedents. Among the acknowledged predecessors of current systems biology rank Norbert Wiener (as a founding father of cybernetics during and after World War II), Ludwig von Bertalanffy (and his coining of a ‘General Systems Theory’, developed between 1945 and 1968) and Robert Rosen (introducing ‘Dynamical Systems Theory’ to biology in the 1970ies). These scholars stand for an ‘early’ systems biology approach.

Moreover, the character of current systems biology is heavily influenced by recent historical developments. After a period of breakthroughs in molecular biology and the production of -omics data, a ‘new’ systems biology is currently being institutionalised via interdisciplinary research centres (e.g. in the US, the UK and Germany), the formation of collaborative networks on a national (e.g. HepatoSys and the Virtual Liver Network in Germany) and international level (e.g. within the EU funding initiatives SysMO and ERASysBio). This plural, multi-disciplinary and multi-national establishment of systems biology leaves many questions open which are commonly ignored in its characterisation as well as its historiography:

• How homogeneous is the ‘new’ systems biology? Should we speak of one systems biology or plural systems biologies when addressing current systems biology research?
• What was it that inspired ‘early’ systems biologies? Did they refer to or belong to (one or more) specific paradigm(s), thought style(s), communities of practice or socio-scientific constellation(s)?
• What are the relations between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ systems biologies? Are there any continuous traditions at the various local sites involved (like e.g. in Vienna)?
• Which are the varying ways of producing knowledge in a multi-disciplinary, multi-level approach (bottom-up, top-down, middle-out), where scientists work with multiple mediums (in silico / in vitro / in vivo)? Are there discipline-related heterogeneities?
• Are there local schools that account for diversity? Do different national modes of institutionalising and governing systems biology relate to different systems biologies?
• Is there a uniting aspect among current systems biologies? How could we characterise it? Is it a paradigm, a theory, a methodology, an approach, a set of practices or a discursive strategy?
• How are the various systems biologies positioned towards the ideal models of ‘pure’/ ‘basic’ or ‘applied’ research? Is the differentiation between systems and synthetic biology requisite for such disciplinary identity work?