Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30099657›Full record

ArticleLife sciences, society and policy2018

Evolutionary tinkering vs. rational engineering in the times of synthetic biology.

Víctor de Lorenzo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life sciences, society and policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Biological Systems as Physical Data Processors: Evolution as a Case of Embodied Computing.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  6. Journal of bacteriology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Synthetic Biology─High Time to Deliver?ACS synthetic biology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Víctor de LorenzoCentro Nacional de Biotecnología-CSIC, Campus de Cantoblanco, 28049, Madrid, Spain. vdlorenzo@cnb.csic.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6041-2731

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 6335536
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic biology is not only a contemporary reformulation of the recombinant DNA technologies of the last 30 years, combined with descriptive language imported from electrical and industrial engineering. It is also a new way to interpret living systems and a statement of intent for the use and reprogramming of biological objects for human benefit. In this context, the notion of designer biology is often presented as opposed to natural selection following the powerful rationale formulated by François Jacob on evolution-as-tinkering. The onset of synthetic biology opens a different perspective by leaving aside the question about the evolutionary origin of biological phenomena and focusing instead on the relational logic and the material properties of the corresponding components that make biological system work as they do. Once a functional challenge arises, the solution space for the problem is not homogeneous but it has attractors that can be accessed either through random exploration (as evolution does) or rational design (as engineers do). Although these two paths (i.e. evolution and engineering) are essentially different, they can lead to solutions to specific mechanistic bottlenecks that frequently coincide or converge-and one can easily help to understand and improve the other. Alas, productive discussions on these matters are often contaminated by ideological preconceptions that prevent adoption of the engineering metaphor to understand and ultimately reshape living systems-as ambitioned by synthetic biology. Yet, some possible ways to overcome the impasse are feasible. In parallel to Monod's evolutionary paradox of teleo-logy (finality/purpose) vs. teleo-nomy (appearance of finality/purpose), a mechanistic paradox could be entertained between techno-logy (rational engineering) vs techno-nomy (appearance of rational engineering), all for the sake of understanding the relational logic that enables live systems to function as physico-chemical entities in time and space. This article thus proposes a radical vision of synthetic biology through the lens of the engineering metaphor.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionGenetic EngineeringSynthetic BiologyTerminology as TopicHumansDevicesGenetic engineeringMinimum systemsModulesPartsSynthetic biologySystemsTeleologyTeleonomy

Identifiers

PMID30099657
PMCPMC6087506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.