The inner Life of a Cell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H1S9d5h-Ps
Archive for June, 2007
Biologists at the Design Table
If Biology seeks to answer the question, “what characteristics of living things?”, then design biology tries to understand how the processes and artifacts of living systems help define design opportunities for humans and other systems.
I’ve adapted this definition based on how Elizabeth Tunstall defines what it means to be a design anthropologist. However, whereas the anthropological approach is more concerned with meaning, I think the design biologist is at least as concerned with function. The reason for this is that there has to be a certain level of integration for living systems to continue to cooperate, behave, or evolve dynamically. Therefore, if we are designing a product, understanding what the consequences of the product’s lifecycle are for humans and other living organisms is crucial if they are going to sustainable. 
Another tactic is used by the Biomimicry Institute and seeks to incorporate processes and heuristics that exist in nature as for design research and strategy. By asking how a grebe or a spider accomplishes a certain task, we can understand a lot about the world. However, in order to do this, we need to have tools for recognizing patterns and process. Biologists bring these to the table during the design process. The other important skill is empathy. Being able to put oneself in another’s position is so important for recognizing how that solution may or may not work. Studying a leaf provides insight into the plant and may help you identify how your project can be cooperatively integrated into the ecosystem. Wouldn’t that be better than just designing despite the rest of the world? It’s a way cooler challenge.
Here’s an article on biomimicry at Worldchanging
snail-eating snakes and gold: Suriname unbound
My friend and colleague Zack Denfeld wrote this piece about the recent announcement of new species in the rainforests of Suriname. He comes from a public policy perspective of sorts and illuminates some of the conflicts underlying these finds. In any case, A SNAIL-EATING SNAKE! Nice.
24 new species and po$$ibly gold
documentation from conservation.org
For memory’s sake, here’s a pic of us in Brownsburg National Park of Suriname in the summer of 2005.
The differences that make a difference.
Gregory Bateson defines information as “a difference that makes a difference” (1).
This is why the framing, point of view, or perspective of information is important. Perspective is what allows us to take things into account and recognize for whom these differences matter.
Bateson’s words ideas came to mind as I recently read a news report (2) about a social science study investigating the impact of interdisciplinary education on the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math). For a while now, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has supported interdisciplinary graduate education programs. I had the fortunate opportunity to participate as an affiliate of the Evolution, Development, and Genomics IGERT while studying at Indiana University. There is a wide diversity of programs ranging from the aforementioned Evo-Devo program to focused efforts in Complex Systems and Invasive Species Biology and Policy, for example.
My experience with the IGERT at IU was extremely enriching, but I would never have described it as interdisciplinary, per se. The difference I recognized was the attention that evolutionary biologists gave to developmental variation as a source of novelty and the recognition of developmental biologists that a handful of gene-expression profiles was not enough to characterize the variation in a population. I always wondered if there were any truly unique perspectives involved in the mixing of evolution, development an genomics or if it was really about the integration of tools to expand the explanatory power of evolution and genetics.
In the Nature article, Amanda Haag describes the social experiment in which students were organized into two experimental groups based on their functional role (natural science, policy analyst, etc), their stage of education, and those that had received training in an interdisciplinary framework and those that had traditional disciplinary graduate training. A number of smaller sub-groups were then formed based on the charrette model (3) to solve a specific problem. Apparently, the charrette process is used extensively in urban planning and other disciplines that frequently require the involvement of multiple stakeholders. Not surprisingly, the term is thought to come from the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris in the nineteenth century. Contrast this model of design process with Bruno Latour’s Politics of Nature in which he sets out to establish the context for political ecology in the practice of science and policy-making.
The observation that stood out in Haag’s article was that, “To everyone’s surprise, students tackled the problem similarly, irrespective of whether they had interdisciplinary or traditional training.”
The researchers conducting the study have yet to analyze the results, but from my perspective this observation would not be surprising. For one thing, these aren’t very heterogeneous groups. Each of the functional roles maintains that science has the fundamental explanatory power. That’s a pretty specific perspective. Also, what is the real difference in graduate training that occurs through a program like IGERT? Are different perspectives really encountered, or are similar perspectives reinforced by integrating individuals that share the same perspective but use different heuristics and interpretations? Given that the groups are trying to solve problems based on the intersection of human activities and ecosystem services, these could easily be classified as difficult problems that may also require frameworks other than science and policy-making.
I should back up a bit and provide some more background.
I’ve been reading The Difference by Scott Page (5) along with the Complex Systems interdisciplinary workshop here at the University of Michigan. Page is a Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics, and his book discusses how “the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies.”
Page’s main argument and finding is that diversity in mental models (aka cognitive approaches) is the premiere source of diversity’s benefit to problem solving.
In order to get to this result, Page categorizes people’s cognitive toolbox into four functional frameworks: perspectives, heuristics, interpretations, and predictive models.
Perspectives are “how we see things…[and]…a map from reality to an internal language such that each distinct object, situation, problem, or event gets mapped to a unique word.” One might easily say that artists frequently contribute different perspectives. Keep in mind that we don’t necessarily have to rely on verbal mappings of perspective.
A heuristic is “a rule applied to an existing solution represented in a perspective that generates a new (and hopefully better) solution or a new set of possible solutions.” I tend to think of these as behaviors. It might entail finding a new idea or solution by simply looking across the aisle in a library after searching for a specific book. This chance operation depends partly on the Dewey decimal system, the layout of the library, and the subject of your initial search.
Interpretations are mappings “from objects, situations, problems, and events to words. In an interpretation, one word can mean many objects.” What’s the difference between a perspective and an interpretation? Using Page’s approach, identifying each of these components (perspectives, heuristics, interpretations, and predictive models) as components of the cognitive toolbox is a perspective. Using predictive models to classify the differences among disciplines is an example of how interpretations can be used. How the interpretation is structured and/or relevant depends on our goal (more on that later).
A predictive model is “an interpretation together with a prediction for each set or category created by the interpretation.” Predicting if an organism is a member of a is a member of particular species might be a good example. One perspective might view genetics as having something to do with species definitions and thus say that certain gene sequences will be able to predict its species. Another perspective might perspective might say that genetics is not involved. In this case, one interpretation might simply say that morphology will predict the species. The non-genetic perspective might also say that the a species is classified depending on whether it was embalmed, trained, a suckling pig, a mermaid, fabulous, a stray dog, or other (6).
Page took all of these tools into account when developing a mathematical proof to show how these differences matter for the problem-solving capacities of groups.
Though I’m only through chapter six, here is what I understand about Page’s results.
The main feature thus far is that one shouldn’t rely on standardized measures of ability alone. In fact, diversity in groups trumps the ability of homogeneous groups. In order for this to happen, a few necessary conditions and assumptions are needed.
One condition is that the problem needs to be sufficiently difficult such that no single member can solve it by themselves. That individuals share the same, similar, or synergistic goals is an important factor in determining a group’s success. Many social problems fall into the category of “difficult” including those that the grad students were faced with in the social science experiment.
Another condition is that each of the problem solvers has some ability to solve the problem. This is where some of my concerns begin. In the book, Page argues that problem solvers in a group cannot create overly rugged landscapes. By this he means that individuals in a group must contribute perspectives that contain knowledge of the causes of X problem. In this sense, he is keeping the perspectives among group members constant while allowing the heuristics and/or interpretations to be the mechanisms of diversity. This is an important assumption and one that has important consequences for interdisciplinary policy.
Page states clearly that this result shows that chemists will not benefit from having a poet or other humanist join them in the lab. I personally think he shouldn’t have been so categorical about this conclusion, given the examples he used (designing products, curing diseases, and improving our educational system). The opportunity for someone to contribute knowledge depends on the problem and its definition. If it is too specific a problem, then perhaps only those with extremely specialized knowledge can contribute. However, the very difficult problems he cites are the product of many different perspectives and causes. Should teachers and educational administrators be the only individuals contributing knowledge about the causes of educational inequity? What about educational standards? In order for the benefits of diverse perspectives to be realized, they must, as Bergson points out, be taken into account. After all, these perspectives may be the differences that matter for a positive solution.
Another one of Page’s assumptions is that people with the same perspective are able to communicate clearly, or, conversely, that people with different perspectives are unable to communicate. This is due to the one-to-one mapping of idea and word that Page’s definition of perspective entails. What happens when we don’t share the same perspective and can still communicate? One might describe this as empathy–i.e. recognizing another’s perspective. It might also be the product of a translator that can provide the mapping between perspectives. If these situations exist (and I know that they do), it is likely that people with wildly different perspectives have contributions that will amplify the beneficial effects of diversity.
All of this is why, when I read the Nature article, I was not surprised that the different groups used similar tactics to solve the problems. The question to ask is at what threshold is there difference enough to create diversity in group perspectives. If we have this diversity among perspectives, are we also confident that the group is addressing the same problem? This may be dependent on some form of communication and/or translation that can bridge perspectives.
“Bridges” is a term used by Diana Rhoten (7) to describe researchers that have many cross-disciplinary connections. She contrasts this with “hubs” which describes researchers with the most overall connections. One could therefore hypothesize that a bridge is much more likely to translate across disciplines or perspectives. This is not dissimilar to Burt’s descriptions of network entrepreneurs as individuals that span structural holes (8). Structural holes separate nonredundant sources of information, and entrepreneurs that span these holes recombine these sources in such a way that makes each of these sources valuable to the other. So if we start to ask what interdisciplinary graduate training is providing, we could focus on those policy efforts that remix differences in perspectives, interpretations, heuristics, and/or predictive models. Which is most likely to be the difference that makes a difference? I’ll put my money on groups that bring together wide arrays of perspectives with individuals that can negotiate, translate and broker these differences to solve difficult problems.
- Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. University of Chicago Press.
- Haag, A. Environmental science: A testing experience. Nature, Volume 443, Issue 7109, pp. 265-267 (2006).
- More on charrettes from wikipedia
- Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Translated by Catherine Porter. Harvard University Press.
- See Jorge Luis Borges’ Chinese Encyclopedia in Foucault, M. Les mots et les choses, Paris: Gallimard, 1966 (The Order of Things, New York: Vintage, 1973).
- Rhoten , D. (2003) A Multi-Method Analysis of the Social and Technical Conditions for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. The Hybrid Vigor Institute. San Francisco, CA http://hybridvigor.org
- Burt, R. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Rudolf Arnheim passes
Rudolf Arnheim, a pathbreaking psychologist of visual experience in the arts, died at the age of 102 in Ann Arbor, Michigan on June 9, 2007.
Roger Malina, Editor of the journal Leonardo, had this to say:
Arnheim was a giant in our community, a long time Leonardo Editorial Advisor and seminal figure bridging the era that saw film theory develop to the era of new media.
Arnheim was an honorary editor for the journal.
An obituary by Marvin Eisenberg is forthcoming from the Ann Arbor News.
wikipedia’s entry on Rudolf Arnheim
Ectopia
http://www.igc.gulbenkian.pt/node/view/83
Ectopia is a laboratory hosting artists from different backgrounds interested in exploring the intersection of art and science. It fosters the development of collaborative projects involving artists and researchers.
Ectopia provides resident artists access to the research being conducted at the Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência – a leading Portuguese biological research institute. During the residency, the artists are exposed to the research through seminars and informal discussions with the scientists, being encouraged to develop collaborative projects. In addition, the researchers are also exposed to the artists and invited to take advantage of those collaborations in their scientific projects.
Strategies for Creative Research at the Interface of Art and Life Science pt III
My goal is to implement synthesis between the disciplines of art, design, and biology. As a way of reaching this objective, a set of heuristics can be a valuable tool. My attempt is situated within a systems approach to art, which seeks to integrate the development of better decision making and other analytical strategies with creative arts behaviors. I import the heuristic concepts of relational aesthetics, boundary objects, and network entrepreneurship. These ideas of value, form, and behavioral strategy, respectively, can serve as first approximations for how to engage in the ideation and implementation of creative work. These also function as design strategies that take into account differences among disciplines. They may therefore aid in the formation of educational and organizational objectives whose aim is to find positive solutions at the interfaces of art, design, and life science.
1.1.3. Network Entrepreneurship
A third heuristic is the concept of network entrepreneurship. A network entrepreneur is someone who brokers ideas across structural holes in organization and networks (Burt 2003). Burt defines structural holes as areas of emptiness or gaps between social groups. The epistemological and methodological gap between the arts and sciences is a good example. According to Burt, individuals (and possibly groups) that provide vision advantages through network entrepreneurship can be thought of and related to as social capital. The work that these types of individuals do is based on the assumption that within group variation and the diversity of ideas is less than the variation and range of possible solutions achievable between groups.
Network entrepreneurs are positioned (or position themselves) to draw from these different sources of variation while seeking strategic design solutions.
If an individual in involved in designing a boundary object, the degree to which they engage in network entrepreneurship may increase the suitability of that object across different communities. Burt (2003) recognizes four behaviors of network entrepreneurs who engage in information arbitrage:
- Making individuals in one or both groups aware of the interests and difficulties of the other(s), and in the process, mitigate misunderstandings and confusion.
- Transferring practices that have the potential to create value from one group in another group.
- Drawing analogies between things that are seemingly irrelevant to one another.
- Synthesizing new behaviors and beliefs that combine the concerns of multiple groups.
One thing to recognize is how similar the benchmarks for interdisciplinary integration (see Wolfe and Haynes 2003) are with these brokering behaviors. It seems reasonable to consider the processes of network entrepreneurship in the context of strategies for realizing high quality interdisciplinary creative work.
Examples of network entrepreneurship abound and there are varying degrees of the behavior. Someone directly involved in cinema production may reasonably be called a network entrepreneur. Cinema, by virtue of its techniques and conventions, is a collaborative medium and dependent on the actions of individuals to create a relational aesthetic that facilitates production. Recognizing the corresponding needs of the lighting crew and the camera operators is a function of the director of photography. The motion picture is a sort of boundary object, representing the work and input from a variety of individuals, groups, and organizations. In an industrial setting, producers balance the concerns of directors and distributors. On the side of the spectator, cinema appeals to multiple audiences and provides an exceptional level of empathy for the viewer to attach oneself (Koss 2006).
For Soviet filmmaker Sergi Eisenstein, calling attention to the similarity between developing cells in a biological context was akin to his new formalist approach to film editing (Eisenstein 1949). This was a form of network entrepreneurship that facilitated communication and boundary crossing using an analogy.
For students, network entrepreneurship can take the form of an idealized set of behaviors that can facilitate the formation of new ideas.
As a principle of good practice, encouraging network entrepreneurship can communicate high expectations and promote respect for diverse talents and ways of learning.
High expectations are reinforced when standards in one group can be related to standards in another. The high currency placed on writing in the sciences, for example, may carry over into the arts if they are networked. Likewise, the emphatic respect for diversity in the arts may also carry into the sciences as multiple perspectives contribute to new
ideas.
If the goal is to build bridges between art and biology, network entrepreneurs are a key to unlocking new opportunities. By actively promoting connections and translating across these social boundaries, network entrepreneurs establish relationships and build cohesion within and between individuals.
Burt, R. S. Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology. 110: (2004). p.349–399.
Eisenstein, S, The Cinematic Principle and the Ideogram in Film Form. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1949.
Koss, J. On the Limits of Empathy. The Art Bulletin. 88: (2006). p.139-57.
Wolfe, C. R., and Haynes, C. Interdisciplinary writing assessment profiles. Issues in Integrative Studies 21: (2003). 126–169.
Woodland Soup
Image by Ejdzej
Here is a recipe I made a few weeks ago as spring here in Michigan was in full bloom. This soup has a bit of a savory/sour/nutty flavor, owing to the mix of chicken broth, eggs, sorrel, and morel mushrooms. It’s great for those semi-cool springtime evenings.
Ingredients:
- 7 oz. sorrel leaves (or substitute young spinach leaves)
- 8 oz. morel mushrooms,sliced into thin strips
- 2 Tablespoons olive oil
- 2 Tablespoons salted butter
- 1 onion, finely chopped
- 2 large potatoes, peeled and cut into thin strips
- 7-8 cups vegetable or chicken broth
- 1 teaspoon salt
- 3 egg yolks
- 1/2 cup sour cream
Preparation:
- Remove the stems from the sorrel. Stacking several leaves on top of each other, roll them up lengthwise and then cut them into thin ribbons crosswise. Continue chiffonading the res of the sorrel, and set aside a few tablespoons for garnish.
- Heat the olive oil in a large non-stick soup pot and sauté the onion, stirring, until it is lightly colored.
- Add the potatoes and stirring continuously, cook them for about 5 minutes or until lightly colored.
- Add 7 cups of the broth and salt and bring to a boil over high heat.
- Saute the mushrooms in the butter for jut a few minutes and add along with the sorrel chiffonade; reduce the heat to low, and cook for about 10 minutes or until the potatoes are tender.
- Whisk the egg yolks and sour cream together in a small bowl.
- Pour a spoonful of the hot soup into the egg/sour cream mixture and whisk to combine.
- Whisking the soup constantly, pour the tempered eggs back into the soup.
- Cook the soup over low heat, moving the soup pot back and forth on the burner and continuing to stir with a wooden spoon. Do not allow the soup to boil; it should begin to slowly thicken.
- Taste and add more salt if necessary. Thin with as much of the remaining cup of broth as necessary to get a nice consistency.
To serve:
Ladle the soup into 6 heated serving plates and garnish with the reserved chiffonade and hard-boiled egg slices.
Strategies for Creative Research at the Interface of Art and Life Science pt II
My goal is to implement synthesis between the disciplines of art, design, and biology. As a way of reaching this objective, a set of heuristics can be a valuable tool. My attempt is situated within a systems approach to art, which seeks to integrate the development of better decision making and other analytical strategies with creative arts behaviors. I import the heuristic concepts of relational aesthetics, boundary objects, and network entrepreneurship. These ideas of value, form, and behavioral strategy, respectively, can serve as first approximations for how to engage in the ideation and implementation of creative work. These also function as design strategies that take into account differences among disciplines. They may therefore aid in the formation of educational and organizational objectives whose aim is to find positive solutions at the interfaces of art, design, and life science.
1.1.2. Boundary Objects
Difficult social problems often require the perspectives and integration of multiple disciplines. Relational aesthetics emphasizes relationships among individuals, but it does not address how to maintain balance or promote a positive relationship. This creates an immediate conflict between aesthetics and ethics. Because an “aesthetic” does not specifically address what the qualities of the relationship are, there is potential for asymmetrical relationships in which the concerns of individuals are subordinated to those of others. One way to resolve this conflict is to borrow a concept from sociology that helps to identify ways in which symmetrical relationships can be developed. Boundary objects:
“… are those objects that both inhabit several communities of practice and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. Boundary objects are thus both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use and become strongly structured in individual-site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete…Such objects have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is a key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting communities…Boundary objects arise over time from durable cooperation among communities of practice.” (Bowker and Star, 1999)
Boundary objects thus mediate cooperation while maintaining heterogeneity among the participants or actors in a cooperative network. In an analysis of a natural history museum community, Star and Griesemer (1989) found four types of boundary objects:
- Repositories or ordered ‘piles’ of objects that do not require negotiation on the part of the participants in order to use the objects for their own purposes (e.g. databases, natural history collections, Legos).
- Ideal types that are abstract and vague but may be adaptable for local needs (e.g. diagrams, flags, stem cells).
- Coincident boundaries are common objects with the same boundaries but different internal contents. Thus, different perspectives can be shown along with a common referent for cooperating actors (e.g. maps, metaphors).
- Standardized forms are methods of common communication across dispersed groups. These can be transported over long distances without loosing information (e.g. jargon, species designations).
Because relationships exist among humans and non-humans, we might ask how to create or recognize objects that exist at the juncture of humans and non-humans. Do boundary objects serve the purpose of facilitating ethical relationships between humans and those we identify as “other.” To deal with this ethical question and to add yet another ordering scheme for these objects, it is worth distinguishing between objects that members of different communities can interpret, and objects designed by members of different communities. These designations need not be mutually exclusive. It is probable that objects designed by multiple communities would also be interpretable by multiple communities. The point of the designation serves only to
recognize that a single individual can design objects that still resonate with individuals in other communities.
Those involved in the design process need to be able to empathize with members from other social worlds.
Like the relational strategy, the design of boundary objects depends on second-order understanding either at the level of an individual or as a property of a group. As a group property, multiple community members may contribute second-order understanding to the design of a boundary object. This may confer a “multivalent” quality, making it possible to interpret the object across social boundaries and among different contexts. To the extent that boundary objects can be used to communicate with other communities, they serve the ethical function of promoting understanding and empathy, even if only reinforcing the idea of a shared experience. To the extent that boundary objects are made in cooperation with members of multiple communities, they serve the ethical function of making the design process participatory.
For teaching and learning, the generation of boundary objects supplies many opportunities for putting principles of good practice into action.
Because it requires negotiation on the part of the participants, making boundary objects encourages active learning and reciprocity among students.
Active learning happens when students relate the concepts and processes to their own experience (Chickering and Gamson 1987). Reciprocity is achieved when goals are formed, ideas are communicated, and the boundaries of an object are actively negotiated. Time on task is another principle of good practice (Chickering and Gamson 1987), and it supports the boundary objectmaking process. The social pressures that come from negotiation, reciprocity, and active engagement help to focus attention on the task of making along with the reception and communication needed to accomplish the task. It also holds students accountable for their roles and responsibilities to a project. If one of the prerequisites for making a boundary object is to identify and empathize with members of different social groups, then the ethical dilemma created by a relational focus is at least partially met by involving others in the process.
Consider what this might mean for the intersections of art and biology and for the relationships of humans and non-humans. Art integrates perception into the communication network of society and demonstrates the compelling social forces of order in the realm of the possible (Luhmann 2000). Making boundary objects presents an opportunity for the communication of biology and life science to open itself to perception. Negotiation among artists and biologists would amount to continuous recalibration of the discourse and practice of biology as an attempt to match socially desired futures with those being performed out of convention. One expected outcome is greater second-order understanding for biologists seeking to improve their explanatory power and gain a better understanding of how research is perceived. For the relationship between humans and non-humans, making boundary objects is an exercise in establishing concern for each other’s concerns. The most obvious benefit comes in the form of what Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock described as “a feeling for the organism” (Keller 1983). If a biologist can empathize with the organism they are studying, then they stand a better chance of making better decisions about what they are looking at and how it should be examined.
Bowker, G. C., and Star, S. L. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1999.
Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education” American Association of Higher Education Bulletin. (1987). p.3-7.
Keller, E. F. A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1983.
Luhmann, N. Art as a social system. Stanford University Press. Stanford, Calif. 2000.
Star, S. L. and J. R. Griesemer. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations,’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939. Social Studies of Science 19: (1989). p.387-420.
