Biomimicry is a wonderful concept that takes inspiration from nature for the designs of technology. The sleek design of the nose of high speed trains reduces wind-resistance, allowing for more efficient movement of trains that is directly inspired by the way birds’ beaks reduce wind resistance. Ventilation systems take direct inspiration from the ventilation towers in termite mounds. One of my personal favorites involves the use of small strands of wood with seeds attached to them - the wood strip begins to twist in a corkscrew motion as water evaporates from it, eventually twisting the attached seed into the ground - an ingenious method for getting scattered seeds to bury themselves that is directly inspired by what geranium seeds have already evolved the ability to do.

However, I have begun to recognize a phenomenon, which I describe as “reverse biomimicry” that is all too pervasive, particularly within the field of biology, in which we take our own technological developments and use them to describe and understand various biological phenomena. For example, every biology student is taught that DNA is the “code” of life, or that each cell is like a “factory”, or that the human brain is like an extremely advanced “computer”. Code, factories, and computers are all human constructs. DNA is, however, not a code; it’s a sequence of nucleotides. Calling it “code” imposes the metaphor of programming and intention, where in reality it’s biochemical interaction filtered through evolutionary pressure. Likewise, cells are not factories; factories have blueprints and managers. Cells are stochastic, decentralized, emergent systems. And lastly, brains are not computers; they embody experience through plastic, distributed, and context-dependent changes. They are not even like computers—they invented computers.

These metaphors may be useful as teaching tools, but I fear that they result in a drastically over-simplified, and potentially even incorrect conceptualization of some of the natural phenomena that require correct understanding for the most crucial elements of our progress as a species. These conceptualizations are models, and while the adage goes that “the model isn’t correct, but it works”, I fear that this breeds a form of intellectual laziness. We have not made the enormous strides that I felt were implicated when we sequenced the enti...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments