Biological Theory

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 50–59 | Cite as

Engineering and Biology: Counsel for a Continued Relationship

  • Brett Calcott
  • Arnon Levy
  • Mark L. Siegal
  • Orkun S. Soyer
  • Andreas Wagner
Thematic Section Article: Evolutionary Systems Biology

Abstract

Biologists frequently draw on ideas and terminology from engineering. Evolutionary systems biology—with its circuits, switches, and signal processing—is no exception. In parallel with the frequent links drawn between biology and engineering, there is ongoing criticism against this cross-fertilization, using the argument that over-simplistic metaphors from engineering are likely to mislead us as engineering is fundamentally different from biology. In this article, we clarify and reconfigure the link between biology and engineering, presenting it in a more favorable light. We do so by, first, arguing that critics operate with a narrow and incorrect notion of how engineering actually works, and of what the reliance on ideas from engineering entails. Second, we diagnose and diffuse one significant source of concern about appeals to engineering, namely that they are inherently and problematically metaphorical. We suggest that there is plenty of fertile ground left for a continued, healthy relationship between engineering and biology.

Keywords

Adaptationism Design Engineering Evolvability Gene regulation Metaphor Evolutionary systems biology 

References

  1. Alon U (2003) Biological networks: the tinkerer as an engineer. Science 301:1866–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alon U (2006) An introduction to systems biology. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  3. Balch M (2003) Complete digital design. McGraw Hill Professional, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Boudry M, Pigliucci M (2013) The mismeasure of machine: synthetic biology and the trouble with engineering metaphors. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C 44:660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray D (1995) Protein molecules as computational elements in living cells. Nature 376:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calcott B (2013) Why how and why aren’t enough: more problems with Mayr’s proximate-ultimate distinction. Biol Philos 28:767–780. doi:10.1007/s10539-013-9367-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calcott B (2014) Engineering and evolvability. Biol Philos 29:293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cordero OX, Hogeweg P (2006) Feed-forward loop circuits as a side effect of genome evolution. Mol Biol Evol 23:1931–1936. doi:10.1093/molbev/msl060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Csete ME, Doyle JC (2002) Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science 295:1664–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eldar A, Elowitz MB (2010) Functional roles for noise in genetic circuits. Nature 467:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis K (2008) Business analysis benchmark: the impact of business requirements on the success of technology projects. IAG Consulting. http://www.iag.biz/resources/library/business-analysis-benchmark.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
  12. Foote B, Yoder J (2000) Big ball of mud. Online version at http://www.laputan.org/mud/. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
  13. Godfrey-Smith P (2006) The strategy of model-based science. Biol Philos 21:725–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green S, Fagan M, Jaeger J (2014a) Explanatory integration challenges in evolutionary systems biology. Biol Theory. doi:10.1007/s13752-014-0185-8 Google Scholar
  15. Green S, Levy A, Bechtel W (2014b) Design without adaptationism. Eur J Philos Sci. doi:10.1007/s13194-014-0096-3 Google Scholar
  16. Griffiths PE (1996) The historical turn in the study of adaptation. Br J Philos Sci 47:511–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacob F (1977) Evolution and tinkering. Science 196:1161–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kashtan N, Alon U (2005) Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102:13773–13778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kauffman SA (1969) Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. J Theor Biol 22:437–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2013) More on how and why: cause and effect in biology revisited. Biol Philos 28:719–745. doi:10.1007/s10539-012-9335-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy A (2014a) Modeling without models. Philos Stud. doi:10.1007/s11098-014-0333-9 Google Scholar
  22. Levy A (2014b) Machine-likeness and explanation by decomposition. Philos Impr 14(6):1–15Google Scholar
  23. Lewens T (2005) Organisms and artifacts. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewontin RC (1996) Evolution as engineering: integrative approaches to molecular biology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Leys SP, Yahel G, Reidenbach MA et al (2011) The sponge pump: the role of current induced flow in the design of the sponge body plan. PLoS ONE 6:e27787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lynch M (2007) The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes. Nat Rev Genet 8:803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macilwain C (2010) Scientists versus engineers: this time it’s financial. Nature 467:885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McConnell S (2004) Code complete: a practical handbook of software construction, 2nd edn. Microsoft Press, RedmondGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson MR, King JR, Jensen OE (2013) Buckling of a growing tissue and the emergence of two-dimensional patterns. Math Biosci. doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2013.09.008 Google Scholar
  30. Nicholson DJ (2012) The concept of mechanism in biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C 43:152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Malley MA, Soyer OS (2012) The roles of integration in molecular systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43:58–68. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paley W (1817) Natural theology; or evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity. Mason, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Pauwels E (2013) Communication: mind the metaphor. Nature 500:523–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peter IS, Davidson EH (2011) Evolution of gene regulatory networks controlling body plan development. Cell 144:970–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pigliucci M, Boudry M (2011) Why machine-information metaphors are bad for science and science education. Sci Educ 20:453–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raman K, Wagner A (2011) Evolvability and robustness in a complex signalling circuit. Mol BioSyst 7:1081–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Royce WW (1970) Managing the development of large software systems (vol. 26). Presented at the proceedings of IEEE WESCON, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  38. Rubinstein M, Colby RH (2003) Polymer physics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Steinacher A, Soyer OS (2012) Evolutionary principles underlying structure and response dynamics of cellular networks. Adv Exp Med Biol 751:225–247. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3567-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thieffry D, Romero D (1999) The modularity of biological regulatory networks. Biosystems 50:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vogel S (2003) Comparative biomechanics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner A (2011) The origins of evolutionary innovations: a theory of transformative change in living systems. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wagner GP, Pavlicev M, Cheverud JM (2007) The road to modularity. Nat Rev Genet 8:921–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weisberg M (2007) Who is a modeler? Br J Philos Sci 58:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weisberg M (2013) Simulation and similarity. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brett Calcott
    • 1
  • Arnon Levy
    • 2
  • Mark L. Siegal
    • 3
  • Orkun S. Soyer
    • 4
  • Andreas Wagner
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Center for Genomics and Systems BiologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.School of Life SciencesUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  5. 5.Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  6. 6.Swiss Institute of BioinformaticsLausanneSwitzerland
  7. 7.Santa Fe InstituteSanta FeUSA

Personalised recommendations