Utilizing Cell Signaling & Plant Intelligence
For several years now, I have been advising researchers in communications technologies that the next big thing for them will be when someone learns how to manipulate biological and chemical processes for human communication purposes the way the physical electron eventually came to be used to revolutionize human communication.
The "electronic revolution", which most futurists understand to be the major technological development of the second half of the 20th century, followed the classic "S" curve of development which Graham Molitor identified as underlying "emerging issues analysis", a fundamental tool of the Manoa School of Futures Studies, and many other futures groups.
It is now possible to see that a similar process is underway for biological and chemical processes.
While I have not tried to determine the first emergence of the idea, or its initial early steps, a major push of the issue up the "S" curve came in 1999 when the highly-respected journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science, began publication of a separate journal that they titled Science's STKE. STKE stands for "signal transduction knowledge environment" which itself is defined as "the biochemical processes by which cells respond to cues in their internal or external environment. Because signal transduction mechanisms are the natural control circuits that regulate biological systems, they provide potent targets for development of therapeutic agents to combat disease or otherwise alter the behavior of biological systems."
Science changed the name, but not the focus of STKE, with the weekly publication of Science Signaling from 2008. Among other things, the fact that it is published weekly indicates that it is moving even more quickly up the "S" curve.
Yet, according to what I have been able to discern, most research us still in the basic science area, attempting to discover how cell signaling processes work. And most applications are still envisioned to be in "development of therapeutic agents to combat disease", and not yet in the "alter the behavior of biological systems" category. I have seen nothing so far that suggests using these biochemical processes for human communication in ways analogous to the electron and electronics.
But I suspect the time can't be far off.
Two recent items (among many others) suggest why.
One example is in Science itself (Vol. 324, May 29, 2009): A review essay by Christina Smolke titled "It's the DNA that counts" (1156f) and the technical article by Ari Friedland, et al., titled "Synthetic gene networks that count." (1199-1202).
The abstract to the latter says, "Synthetic gene networks can be constructed to emulate digital circuits and devices, giving one the ability to program and design cells with some of the principles of modern computing, such as counting." The authors still see this ability primarily as giving "bioengineers and molecular biologists" the ability "to construct therapeutic agents." But can other uses be far behind?
The second item is an article in Science News (June 20, 2009, pp 16-19) by Susan Milius, titled "No brainer behavior." It is based on a series of essays in the journal, Plant, Cell & Environment, of June 2009. The issue, which "is devoted to plant behavior, even begins with a paper that uses the term 'plant intelligence'," shows the many ways in which plants seem to move (sometimes with 0.5 Mach speed), communicate, deceive, fight, cooperate with other plants and animals intentionally, often apparently relying on memory of past experiences while doing so. If "intelligence" can be defined as "a capacity for problem solving" (as Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh does (and I agree), then the evidence seems to show that at least some plants are intelligent.
In spite of a spate of talking with and singing to plants by hippies in the 1960s, the scientific basis of plant intelligence is new and controversial. "A 2006 manifesto" introduced "the field to readers of Trends in Plant Science," aiming at understanding "how plants process the information they obtain from their environment."
Objectors abound. David Robinson of the University of Heidelberg says, "I see no reason why one can't simply talk about signal transduction in plants." There is no reason to infer intelligence or even intention, he says.
Nonetheless, whether plants cogitate or not, "signal transduction in plants" is quite enough if it enables humans to learn how to use those processes to augment our own cogitation and communication--and that of our artilects.
Jim Dator
