Propellers and promoters: emerging engineering knowledge in aeronautics and synthetic biology

AbstractSocial studies of engineering have dedicated little attention to the question of epistemology. Although considerable attention has been paid to the growth of knowledge in science, surprisingly few authors have considered the development of engineering knowledge, and while much is made of emerging technologies, emerging knowledge is still associated with science, not engineering. This disparity is justified to the extent that science aims at the development of knowledge and understanding, while engineering aims at the making of things. Nonetheless, much is missed by engineering studies devoid of epistemic concerns. This essay develops an epistemological analysis of an emerging field of engineering: synthetic biology. Drawing lessons from Walter Vincenti's historical epistemology of aeronautics, I discuss contemporary knowledge practices in synthetic biology. My argument focuses on: the relationship between theory-based knowledge and empirical experience, the setting of requirements and parameters to guide design and fabrication, and the relationship between engineering knowledge and technological artifacts. Having thoroughly examined each topic, I discuss what this epistemological study teaches us about synthetic biology. Importantly, I consider the role that knowledge-making plays in the emergence of engineering disciplines. Finally, I note implications for broader work in engineering studies and posit directions for future research.Keywords: synthetic biologyaeronauticsengineering knowledgeepistemology Notes1Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 13.2Mutalik et al., “Rules for Precision Gene” (Under Review).3Endy, “Foundations for Engineering Biology”; Baker et al., “Engineering Life.”4Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Emerging Biotechnologies; Schyfter and Calvert, “Intentions, Institutions, and Infrastructure,” forthcoming.5See the following articles, all of which discuss the diversity of synthetic biological work: Benner and Sismour, “Synthetic Biology”; O'Malley et al., “Knowledge-Making Distinctions”; Arkin et al., “Synthetic Biology”; Keller, “Knowing as Making, Making as Knowing.”6Elowitz and Leibler, “A Synthetic Oscillator Network.”7Jones Prather and Martin, “De Novo Biosynthetic Pathways.”8Heinemann and Panke, “Synthetic Biology”; Endy, “Synthetic Biology”; Specter, “A Life of Its Own.”9This definition fits nicely with Vincenti's own emphasis on organization, design, and planning. See Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 141.10Throughout the article, when I refer to synthetic biologists, I am speaking of this group of engineering-oriented researchers. Others who self-identify as synthetic biologists or as labeled as such by observers of the field are outside the scope of my argument.11Baker et al., “Engineering Life,” 44.12Ibid., 51.13Endy, “Foundations for Engineering Biology.”14Hartwell et al., “From Molecular to Modular Cell Biology”; Sauro, “Modularity Defined.”15Endy and Arkin, Standard Parts List; Anderson et al., “BglBricks.”16Arkin, “Setting the Standard”; Canton et al., “Refinement and Standardization.”17Arkin, “Setting the Standard”; Chopra and Kamma, “Engineering Life Through”; De Lorenzo and Danchin, “Synthetic Biology”; Purnick and Weiss, “Second Wave of Synthetic Biology.”18Keasling et al., “USPTO Patent Application 20070166782.”19Savage et al., “Defossiling Fuel.”20Anderson et al., “Environmentally Controlled Invasion.”21Ajo-Franklin et al., “Rational Design of Memory in Eukaryotic Cells.”22Florman, Existential Pleasures of Engineering, 113.23Bloor, Enigma of the Aerofoil, 244.24BIOFAB is a ‘recursive acronym’ for “BIOFAB: International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology.”25See Sanders, “NSF Grant.”26Baker et al., “Engineering Life,” 49.27Mutalik et al., “Scalable Estimation of Activity” (Under Review).28The early twentieth century saw a heated debate regarding the physical causes of lift. See Bloor, Enigma of the Aerofoil.29Arkin et al., “Synthetic Biology.”30Currently, Adam Arkin (UC Berkeley) and Ron Weiss (MIT) are developing the first textbook on synthetic biology for undergraduate students.31For a fascinating history, see Constant, Origins of the Turbojet Revolution.32Vincenti,What Engineers Know, 141.33Mutalik et al., “Scalable Estimation of Activity” (Under Review); Mutalik et al., “Rules for Precision Gene” (Under Review).34Mutalik et al., “Scalable Estimation of Activity” (Under Review).35Mutalik et al., “Rules for Precision Gene” (Under Review).36Vincenti, “Engineering Theory in the Making”; Bloor, Enigma of the Aerofoil.37Vincenti,What Engineers Know, 1638Ibid., 50.39Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 161. See also Vincenti, “Engineering Experiment and Engineering Theory.”40Vincenti,What Engineers Know, 45. For a historical analysis of technical testing, see Constant, “Scientific Theory and Technological Testability.” For a sociology study (also concerning aircraft design), see Downer, “When the Chick Hits the Fan.”41Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 163.42Ibid., Ch. 5. This case study was first published as Vincenti, “Air-Propeller Tests.”43Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 137.44Mutalik et al., “Rules for Precision Gene” (Under Review).45Mutalik et al., “Scalable Estimation of Activity” (Under Review).46Ibid.47Mutalik, “Expression Operating Unit.”48Endy, “Foundations for Engineering Biology”; Baker et al., “Engineering Life”; Heinemann and Panke, “Synthetic Biology.”49“The engineer must produce an answer and must forge concepts to deal with the problem. The natural scientist can wait for inspiration or more information; the engineer cannot.” See Bloor, Enigma of the Aerofoil, 190.50Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 163.51Ibid., 255.52Schyfter, “Bootstrapped Artefact.”53Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 156.54Mutalik, “Expression Operating Unit.”55Mutalik et al., “Scalable Estimation of Activity” (Under Review).56There are clear links to Pinch's work on externality in scientific observation. See Pinch, “Toward an Analysis.”57Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 211.58Ibid., 206.59Ibid., 135.60Vincenti writes: The operational principle and normal configuration of an airplane, for example, are in no sense knowledge of how a flying machine innately is; they are knowledge of how a particular kind of flying machine ought to be to serve certain purposes. (“Engineering Knowledge, Type of Design,” 22, my emphasis)61Rivets hold pieces of metal together, such as the sheets that make up an aircraft's fuselage. In aircraft, flush rivets do not protrude the outer surface of the fuselage. This lowers aerodynamic drag and makes them preferable to protruding rivets for high-speed flight.62Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 189.63Ibid., 166.64Sanders, “NSF Grant.”65Mutalik et al., “Scalable Estimation of Activity” (Under Review).66Ibid.67Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 6.68Layton writes: ‘… laws of science refer to nature and the rules of technology refer to human artifice. The function of technological rules is to provide a rational basis for design, not to enable man to understand the universe’. See “Technology as Knowledge,” 40.69Schyfter, “Technological Biology?”70Vincenti, What Engineers Know, 17, my emphasis.71Ibid., 205.72Ibid., Ch. 7 for an exploration of these concepts.73Ibid., 257.74Vincenti takes no normative stance on the science-engineering relationship, as it seems to me Pitt does (incorrectly) in “What Engineers Know,” 2001.75Baker et al., “Engineering Life,” 46.