ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Oscillator

Oscillator


Notes, thoughts, and news on synthetic biology.
Oscillator Home

Design Evolution

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Using the words evolution and design in the same paragraph, let alone together in the title of a blog post, can make biologists very uncomfortable. Design is something that humans do on purpose, and natural selection doesn’t “do” anything on purpose. Anthropomorphizing and giving intention to evolution is a big time no-no.

Synthetic biologists, however, talk about design all the time. We design genetic networks and metabolic pathways and we try to understand the logic of how cells have evolved to develop better “design principles.” We use evolution to help us optimize enzymes and pathways, designing schemes and selections for directed evolution, and we worry about what will happen to the products and technologies built with synthetic biology if they continue to evolve.

Variation, mutation, and evolution of a product that is made by or actually is a living organism has to be carefully managed and controlled in biotechnology and industrial food production, and will play a large role in future synthetic biologies. But what about other kinds of human-designed products? Can concepts from evolution ever apply to the nonliving world?

I’ve been listening to old episodes of the wonderful podcast about design 99% invisible, which did a short episode about a year ago on an evolutionary leap in the design of the toothbrush. They talked with one of the designers who outlined their process of “mutation,” where they prototyped many variants, changing the shape and thickness of the handle and the position and angle of the bristles, and the process of “selection,” testing the variants with consumers and having them choose the one they liked best. The product is shaped by its environment and its “heredity,” alterations happen around the basic format of handle and bristles, and designs are selected based on their ergonomics, function and style. The environment can also be shaped by the product, affecting our overall oral hygiene and by simply requiring different shaped toothbrush holders.

An interesting essay from Next Nature looks at a similar “evolutionary” process in the design of the razor and “natural selection” by buyer behavior and markets. The section on “Evolution, but not as we know it” I find particularly interesting, and I quote it here at length:

The evolution of the razor, by Next Nature

Of course there are also arguments against this evolutionary view on the development of razor technology – so lets get both sides of the coin here. The most common objection is that “people play a role in the process, so it can’t be evolution.”

This reasoning is tempting, however, it also positions people outside of nature – as if we are somehow placed outside of the game of evolution and its rules don’t apply for us. There is no reason to believe this is the case: after all people have evolved just like all other life. The fact that my razors are dependent on people to multiply is also not unprecedented. The same is valid nowadays for many domesticated fruits like bananas as well as a majority of the cattle on our planet. Moreover, we see similar symbiotic relationships in old nature: just think of the flowers that are dependent on bees to spread their seeds.

Another objection might be that my razors cannot be the result of an evolutionary development because they are made of metal and plastic and not a carbon–based biological species. Underneath this argument lies the assumption that evolution only takes place within a certain medium: carbon–based life forms. A variation of this argument states that evolution only takes place if there are genes involved – like with humans, animals and plants. This way of thinking exemplifies a limited understanding of evolution, as it is a mistake to constrain it to a certain medium rather than to understand it as a principle. In fact the genetic system of DNA underlying our species, is itself also a product of evolution – DNA evolved from the simpler RNA system as a successful medium of coding life. There is no reason why evolutionary processes could not transfer itself to other media: Richard Dawkins already proposed ‘memes’ as a building block of cultural evolution, whereas Susan Blackmore suggested ‘temes’ as building blocks for technological evolution.

In the end, the question we should ask ourselves: are the environmental forces of economy and technology, at least equally or perhaps even more important for the shaping of razor technology, than the design decisions made by the ‘inventors’ of the individual models. I am pretty sure this is the case and hence I propose to consider the development of razors as a truly evolutionary process – not metaphorically, but as reality. The species it brought into being we will call: Razorius Gillettus. It is just one of the numerous new species emerging within the techno-economical system – and it is evolving fast.

Anthropomorphizing evolution is inappropriate for many reasons, and we should be careful about “evolutionizing” human designs. Exploring evolution in design shouldn’t imply design in evolution and shouldn’t be used to naturalize planned obsolescence and the excesses of consumer culture. Rather, understanding better the interrelationships between ecology, technology, and human societies–how we co-evolve with our designs and with our environments–will hopefully lead to technologies that are better adapted for the future.

Christina Agapakis About the Author: Christina Agapakis is a biological designer who blogs about biology, engineering, engineering biology, and biologically inspired engineering. Follow on Twitter @thisischristina.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.



Previous: Our Smell Universe More
Oscillator
Next: Smell-O-Vision




Rights & Permissions

Comments 9 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. kento 12:20 am 10/26/2012

    I don’t think “evolution” needs to be treated with quite this degree of preciousness. Mechanically, evolution is nothing more than trial end error on a massive scale and conceptually, it’s just the mapping of changes over time. Both of these are perfectly valid in the man made world, so “design evolution” seems completely appropriate.

    In the world of human designed things, an extremely important “environmental variable” is aesthetics. For example, the components that go into the creation of an iPad would work just as well if they were hot glued to a piece of plywood, but I’ll wager that Apple would sell far fewer if they had shipped it like that.

    Even with things seemingly immune to aesthetics, like say wood chippers, it plays an important role. Take 10 identical chippers, paint five of them pink, with glitter and a wedding font. Paint the other five with a military cammo pattern and military stencil lettering and its not hard to guess which ones would sell.

    I don’t know if the author factors in aesthetics in her “design evolution” musings, but any accurate mapping of evolution in product forms must take into account how various qualities add up to “desirability” in specific design contexts.

    Link to this
  2. 2. LordDraqo 7:03 am 10/26/2012

    I agree with kento. There is a strong tendency to treat the concept of evolution as something which is sacred and may not be tampered with by the “un-tutored.”

    Link to this
  3. 3. Christina Agapakis in reply to Christina Agapakis 1:01 pm 10/26/2012

    Thanks for your comments! Aesthetics certainly plays a big role in the way that we design and choose products, and it’s interesting to think about aesthetics in the context of evolution and artificial selection in particular. I’m really interested in the role of aesthetics in the practice of science and how human values and ideas of beauty and usefulness are reflected in synthetic biology projects. You can learn more about that kind of research from Synthetic Aesthetics: http://syntheticaesthetics.org.

    The ways that human values get tied up with the science is also part of the reason why I tend to tread lightly around these issues. For example the just-so stories of evolutionary psychology often appeal to the forces of evolution to give legitimacy to and to naturalize social values, dominant ideas of “beauty” and other kinds of prejudices. These kinds of prejudices, especially when it comes to gender, are then amplified and reinforced in everyday aesthetics and design, like the example of the pink vs. camo wood chipper. As far as the “sacredness” of evolution, I certainly am not in the business of policing who can discuss evolution and how ideas from evolution can be applied to human practices, but the word “design” is often code for more religious arguments about evolutionary processes, and I don’t want to be associated with that argument either.

    Link to this
  4. 4. greenhome123 3:52 pm 10/26/2012

    Viva La Evolucion de diseno. Product designers should never underestimate the importance of trial and error. I recently listened to a show on NPR talking about how some of the most effective, successful, and functional designs have been created through trial and error.

    Link to this
  5. 5. admeralthrawn 6:16 pm 10/26/2012

    For a shockingly-addicting demonstration of “design by evolution”, see http://www.boxcar2d.com/.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Bill_Crofut 6:31 pm 10/26/2012

    Re: “This way of thinking exemplifies a limited understanding of evolution, as it is a mistake to constrain it to a certain medium rather than to understand it as a principle.”

    Does that statement imply that evolution is a be-all/end-all explanation for everything? There are those (if memory serves, the late Prof. Stephen Jay Gould, for one) who have insisted that a phenomenon that explains everything explains nothing.

    Link to this
  7. 7. lauramatag 6:56 pm 10/26/2012

    Hi, great post. On this subject, prof. Silvia Pizzocaro from Politecnico di Milano (Italy) did her doctoral dissertation on this subject. I think she also wrote a number of articles on this issue. Unfortunately her doctoral dissertation is only available in Italian.
    Keep up the good work!

    Link to this
  8. 8. Larry-wa 11:37 pm 11/3/2012

    Evolution does indeed extract some adrenaline from the most intelligent and those lacking knowledge. But, I fail to see a rock falling from a cliff and changing a rivers course as evolution. This having caused a fish in that stream to change to another state is evolution. My concept of evolution is that it works on life only. Inanimate objects simply are changed and do not evolve.

    Link to this
  9. 9. royniles 9:17 pm 11/9/2012

    So you don’t believe in adaptive mutation, or as some call it, self-engineering, as life’s primary evolutionary process. No wonder you didn’t acknowledge that I’d sent you my little book, which asks that you do accept that life evolves from reacting strategically to its own experience.
    Strategies requiring a minimum of intelligence, that if we have at all, then in your view we must have acquired by natural accident.
    I’m disappointed.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X