Thread by @ebenbayer

So I saw a bit of disagreement last week over the idea of whether #biology is #programmable in any meaningful sense. As someone who works with biology in an industrial context, I wanted to unpack the idea just a little more. 🧵

For some, the claim that 'biology is programmable' is childishly obvious. Others say it's a bad metaphor or that if we don’t have total #predictability that it doesn’t count as programming. I tend to think both are right.

In #biomaterials, and the synthetic biology field in general, we are hacking systems we don’t understand. We are “programming" them (through environmental or genetic changes), but struggle in the predictability domain because we don’t fully grok this alien #technology (aka life).

The basic disagreement seems to be over whether a biological system can be considered programmable if it is not fully predictable like a mechanical or digital system. And of course the answer is that no biological system is totally predictable.

For engineers, this is not an issue. We are used to dealing with and creating systems that have a window of predictable performance and may create unexpected results outside the target domain of operations. Often built up of many simpler subsystems.

Airplanes are complex systems made of predictable parts. Mech engineers know how the control cables work; electrical engineers know how microchips work; aero engineers understand the conditions for stall. Yet unexpected behavior still emerges (See MCAS)
nytimes.com/2019/09/18/mag…

When you link many predictable systems together, you get a complex system that is unpredictable. This could also describe biology! In bio-based #industry, we're pragmatic about this; we strive for predictability, but expect the unexpected.

A coder works with the black box of a computer they didn't build, and can't totally predict. A bio-engineer is working with the 'black box' we find in #nature. This is why I often describe it as working with the 'alien technology of nature'.

We can 'program' single-celled organisms, even though we don't fully understand their systems. Someday we'll be able to program more complex biology, even if we'll never fully comprehend the greater-than-sum-of-its-parts complexities.

In industry, we don't have the luxury of waiting for a full accounting of complex biological systems. We pragmatically accept that reality, and progress by building mostly predictable systems that tolerate the many mysterious but useful processes of nature.

While people debate this stuff, we try to get good results, and we can do that without grasping every contingency of the system. We work to get complex biology to respond to our needs, hitting practical milestones along the way.

The complexity of biology is cause for humility, but also excitement, because mystery is a source of unexpected discoveries. One thing that doesn't get us anywhere is pedantry, so let's not sweat too much over the use of words like programming, concertos, or predictability!