Engineering and Biology: Counsel for a Continued Relationship

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.

Design Under Randomness: How Variation Affects the Engineering of Biological Systems

“…For example, Heinemann and Panke (2009, p. 394-395) use the manufacturing of a new car as an example of the typical characteristics of real engineering, suggesting that "we just have to replace the car with biological cell and have to employ the outlined features of engineering disciplines." Calcott et al (2015) criticize this image of engineering, which focuses on the design of mechanical and electric machines, as narrow and misleading. They argue that actual engineering is much more heterogeneous in its design methodology and practices; subfields such as software engineering rely on design principles that differ radically from those in mechanical engineering (see also Calcott 2014).…”

“…However, one should not consider directed evolution as exclusively biological design approach that is incompatible with engineering principles. Many engineering projects also rely on similar trial and error design methods (seeCalcott et al 2015), or evolutionary based design, such as use of genetic algorithms.…”

Introduction to Philosophy of Systems Biology

“…Although design principles and organizing principles are often used interchangeably, the preferences for one of these terms also reflect a concern with possible limitations of an engineering approach to biological systems. This question was already a theme in the early work of Bertalanffy and Mesarović (Drack, Chapter 7;Green and Wolkenhauer 2013), but it has regained its relevance in contemporary discussions about research methodologies in systems biology and about the fundamental question of what life is (Boogerd, Chapter 4;Braillard 2015;Boudry and Pigliucci 2013;Calcott et al 2015;Nicholson 2013). Is there something fundamental and distinct about living systems?…”

“…Against this background, many philosophers have been positively surprised by how many systems biologists are open to interactions. The number of joint publications by philosophers and practicing scientists is a positive indication of the mutual interest in philosophy of systems biology (e.g., Boogerd et al 2013;Calcott et al 2015;Carusi et al 2012;Drack and Wolkenhauer 2011;Green, Fagan and Jaeger 2015;O'Malley and Soyer 2012;Jones and Wolkenhauer 2012).…”

A Philosophical Perspective on Evolutionary Systems Biology

“…Because ESB arises at the confluence of different approaches and research questions, modeling tensions can emerge between different levels of explanatory model (Calcott et al 2015, this issue). These tensions are especially strong between detailed mechanistic and law-based explanations, as one of the articles in this collection discusses (Green et al 2014, this issue; see below).…”