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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
One may distinguish a representation that portrays a biological system as a network from the connections and interactions among the biological entities themselves. It is not obvious that biological systems are networks, or even what that would exactly mean. But we must bracket this interesting issue here.
This does not imply that we advocate a strong dissociation between claims about proximate and ultimate causation. There is a lively debate on that issue (Laland et al. 2013; O’Malley and Soyer 2012; Steinacher and Soyer 2012; Calcott 2013). We are merely making the modest claim that hypotheses about current behavior do not as such presuppose assumptions about evolutionary origins.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often for a summary of these ideas.
It is worth pointing out that a charge of poor design is only possible if we have some standard of what good design is—so there is an implicit use of engineering in these arguments.
William Wimsatt’s work on generative entrenchment has, for many years, emphasized similarities between evolutionary and technological change (Wimsatt 2007).
“We…suggest that biological research and teaching could and should actually be done without much use of metaphorical thinking…” (Pigliucci and Boudry 2011, p. 455).
There are other forms of surrogative reasoning that share some properties with metaphor and some with models. A significant example is analogy. We leave it to the reader to extrapolate from what we say here to other cases of surrogation, since our aim is not to cover this topic in exhaustive detail.
Note that precise specification makes the content of the model uncontroversial. Whether and how the model matches the biological system may remain controversial.
As one reviewer suggested, a metaphor and a model might differ in other respects too, such as the status of vehicle of representation: a metaphor might be linguistic, while a model is often mathematical. We won’t delve into thorny issues concerning linguistic versus other forms of representation here. It suffices for our purposes that precision is one significant difference between models and metaphors.
As Steven Vogel would have it: “… biomechanics has mainly been the study of how nature does what engineers have shown to be possible. Nature may have gotten there first, but human engineers, not biologists, have provided us with both analytical tools and practical examples” (Vogel 2003, p. 11).
Alon U (2003) Biological networks: the tinkerer as an engineer. Science 301:1866–1867
Alon U (2006) An introduction to systems biology. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton
Balch M (2003) Complete digital design. McGraw Hill Professional, New York
Boudry M, Pigliucci M (2013) The mismeasure of machine: synthetic biology and the trouble with engineering metaphors. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C 44:660–668
Bray D (1995) Protein molecules as computational elements in living cells. Nature 376:307–312
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
Calcott B (2014) Engineering and evolvability. Biol Philos 29:293–313
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
Csete ME, Doyle JC (2002) Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science 295:1664–1669
Eldar A, Elowitz MB (2010) Functional roles for noise in genetic circuits. Nature 467:167–173
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
Foote B, Yoder J (2000) Big ball of mud. Online version at http://www.laputan.org/mud/. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
Godfrey-Smith P (2006) The strategy of model-based science. Biol Philos 21:725–740
Green S, Fagan M, Jaeger J (2014a) Explanatory integration challenges in evolutionary systems biology. Biol Theory. doi:10.1007/s13752-014-0185-8
Green S, Levy A, Bechtel W (2014b) Design without adaptationism. Eur J Philos Sci. doi:10.1007/s13194-014-0096-3
Griffiths PE (1996) The historical turn in the study of adaptation. Br J Philos Sci 47:511–532
Jacob F (1977) Evolution and tinkering. Science 196:1161–1166
Kashtan N, Alon U (2005) Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102:13773–13778
Kauffman SA (1969) Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. J Theor Biol 22:437–467
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
Levy A (2014a) Modeling without models. Philos Stud. doi:10.1007/s11098-014-0333-9
Levy A (2014b) Machine-likeness and explanation by decomposition. Philos Impr 14(6):1–15
Lewens T (2005) Organisms and artifacts. MIT Press, Cambridge
Lewontin RC (1996) Evolution as engineering: integrative approaches to molecular biology. MIT Press, Cambridge
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:e27787
Lynch M (2007) The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes. Nat Rev Genet 8:803–813
Macilwain C (2010) Scientists versus engineers: this time it’s financial. Nature 467:885
McConnell S (2004) Code complete: a practical handbook of software construction, 2nd edn. Microsoft Press, Redmond
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
Nicholson DJ (2012) The concept of mechanism in biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C 43:152–163
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
Paley W (1817) Natural theology; or evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity. Mason, London
Pauwels E (2013) Communication: mind the metaphor. Nature 500:523–524
Peter IS, Davidson EH (2011) Evolution of gene regulatory networks controlling body plan development. Cell 144:970–985
Pigliucci M, Boudry M (2011) Why machine-information metaphors are bad for science and science education. Sci Educ 20:453–471
Raman K, Wagner A (2011) Evolvability and robustness in a complex signalling circuit. Mol BioSyst 7:1081–1092
Royce WW (1970) Managing the development of large software systems (vol. 26). Presented at the proceedings of IEEE WESCON, Los Angeles
Rubinstein M, Colby RH (2003) Polymer physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
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
Thieffry D, Romero D (1999) The modularity of biological regulatory networks. Biosystems 50:49–59
Vogel S (2003) Comparative biomechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Wagner A (2011) The origins of evolutionary innovations: a theory of transformative change in living systems. Oxford University Press, New York
Wagner GP, Pavlicev M, Cheverud JM (2007) The road to modularity. Nat Rev Genet 8:921–931
Weisberg M (2007) Who is a modeler? Br J Philos Sci 58:207–233
Weisberg M (2013) Simulation and similarity. Oxford University Press, New York
Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
About this article
Cite this article
Calcott, B., Levy, A., Siegal, M.L. et al. Engineering and Biology: Counsel for a Continued Relationship. Biol Theory 10, 50–59 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-014-0198-3
- Gene regulation
- Evolutionary systems biology