Michael Levin Bioelectricity 101 Crash Course Lesson 23: DNA as Hardware, Bioelectricity as Software: A New Analogy Summary

• Traditional biology often focuses on DNA as the primary “instruction manual” for life.
• The “DNA as hardware, bioelectricity as software” analogy reframes this view.
• DNA provides the code for making proteins (the “hardware” – the physical components of cells).
• Bioelectricity, particularly the patterns of voltage gradients, acts as the “software” – the dynamic instructions that control how those components are organized and used.
• This analogy highlights that changing the software (bioelectricity) can dramatically alter the outcome, even with the same hardware (DNA).
• The analogy is not perfect, as biological systems are more intertwined than computers, but it’s a powerful tool for understanding.
• This perspective emphasizes that we need to understand both the hardware (genes) and the software (bioelectricity) to fully understand life.
• It suggests we should look at bioelectic infomration when there is “unexpected” structure from a biological cell.

Michael Levin Bioelectricity 101 Crash Course Lesson 23: DNA as Hardware, Bioelectricity as Software: A New Analogy

For decades, the dominant narrative in biology has centered on DNA. The discovery of the double helix structure, the cracking of the genetic code, and the rise of genomics have all reinforced the idea that DNA is the “master molecule” of life, the blueprint that contains all the instructions for building and operating an organism. Textbooks often depict DNA as a linear sequence of instructions, almost like a recipe for making a living thing. And, to be clear, this perspective is not wrong. DNA is incredibly important. It encodes the information for making all the proteins that cells need to function.

But there’s a growing recognition that this DNA-centric view is incomplete. It’s like having a detailed parts list for a complex machine, but without any instructions on how to assemble those parts, or when and where to use them. This is where the analogy of “DNA as hardware, bioelectricity as software” comes in. It’s a powerful way to understand the missing piece of the puzzle, and it’s central to the paradigm shift that Michael Levin and other bioelectricity researchers are championing.

Let’s break down the analogy. Think about a computer. The hardware consists of the physical components: the circuit boards, the processor, the memory chips, the hard drive, the screen, etc. These are the parts that make up the computer. The software, on the other hand, is the set of instructions that tell the hardware what to do. It’s the operating system (like Windows or macOS), the applications (like your web browser or word processor), and all the data that’s stored on the computer.

The crucial point is this: you can have identical hardware, but different software, and the computer will behave completely differently. Two laptops with the exact same components can run different operating systems, different programs, and have different files. They’ll have different capabilities, different appearances, and different behaviors. The software is what brings the hardware to life, giving it purpose and functionality.

Now, let’s apply this analogy to biology. DNA, in this analogy, is the hardware. It’s the code for making proteins. Proteins are the building blocks of cells and the workhorses that carry out most cellular functions. They are the enzymes that catalyze reactions, the structural components that give cells their shape, the receptors that receive signals, and the ion channels that control the flow of electricity. They are, quite literally, the physical parts of the cellular machine.

So, what’s the software? The software, in this analogy, is bioelectricity. More specifically, it’s the dynamic patterns of voltage gradients across cells and tissues that we’ve been discussing in previous lessons. These patterns are not encoded directly in the DNA sequence. Instead, they emerge from the interactions of the hardware components (the ion channels, pumps, and gap junctions) that the DNA does encode.

It’s crucial to understand this emergence. The DNA doesn’t say, “Create a voltage gradient of -70mV here and -50mV there.” Instead, it says, “Make these ion channels, make these pumps, make these gap junctions.” And then, because of how those components interact with each other, a particular pattern of voltage emerges. This pattern is not static; it’s constantly changing in response to internal and external cues. It’s a dynamic system, and it’s this dynamism that makes it so powerful.

The “software” (bioelectricity) controls how the “hardware” (proteins) is used. It tells cells when to divide, where to migrate, what type of cell to become, and how to organize themselves into complex structures. It’s like the conductor of an orchestra, ensuring that all the different instruments (the proteins) play together in harmony to create a beautiful symphony (a functioning organism).

Here’s why this analogy is so groundbreaking. It suggests that you can change the outcome – the shape, function, and behavior of an organism – by changing the software (bioelectricity), even if the hardware (DNA) remains the same. This is precisely what Michael Levin’s experiments with planarians and frogs have demonstrated.

Remember the two-headed planarians? By manipulating the bioelectrical signals (specifically, by blocking gap junctions), Levin’s team was able to create worms with two heads, even though their DNA was identical to that of normal, one-headed planarians. They changed the software, and that changed the outcome, even though the hardware was unchanged.

The same principle applies to the frog limb regeneration experiments. By briefly manipulating the bioelectric signals at the site of amputation, Levin’s team was able to trigger the regrowth of a functional limb, even in adult frogs, which normally don’t regenerate limbs. They changed the software – the bioelectric instructions for limb formation – and that initiated a complex cascade of events leading to the regrowth of a complete structure.

This is a radical departure from the traditional, gene-centric view. It suggests that we don’t need to rewrite the entire genome to achieve profound changes in biological form and function. Instead, we can “reprogram” the bioelectric software to achieve the desired outcome.

Now, it’s important to acknowledge that the “DNA as hardware, bioelectricity as software” analogy is not perfect. Biological systems are much more intertwined than computers. The “hardware” (proteins) can influence the “software” (bioelectricity), and vice-versa. It’s a dynamic, reciprocal relationship.

For example, the expression of genes (the “hardware”) can be influenced by the membrane potential (the “software”). And, of course, the genes code for the ion channels that create the membrane potential. So, it’s not a simple, one-way street. But even taking into account all these biological complications, the comparison remains incredibly valuable.

The analogy is, above all, useful for the important concept of a “re-framing”. As such:

• DNA, as a blueprint for making physical material, may seem like it contains all instructions on what to build. But we can see that structure information is more correctly in both genetic material, and bioelectric. We should now not always be so surprised that we find examples of cellular constructions with unxpected anatomy. The bioelectric profile will tell a different tale, than just considering the physical genes on their own.
• If something went wrong (such as an accident) – a pure chemical/physical approach would only look at material or protein level fixes It opens a world, for looking at voltage gradients. As seen above, if the voltage signal tells a cell it has cancer – that overpowers a gene expressing normally.
• Conversely, there may exist certain biological situations that may “not make sense”. We must check, at these occasions, the overall bioelectric field. There might be some information encoded that directs such behaviors or structures that otherwise seems completely novel.

In conclusion, the “DNA as hardware, bioelectricity as software” analogy is a powerful tool for understanding the fundamental shift in perspective that bioelectricity research represents. It highlights the crucial role of bioelectrical signals in controlling how the genetic “hardware” is used, and it opens up exciting new possibilities for manipulating biological form and function. It emphasizes that we need to understand both the hardware and the software to truly understand the “operating system” of life.

Michael Levin Bioelectricity 101 Crash Course Lesson 23: DNA as Hardware, Bioelectricity as Software: A New Analogy Quiz

1. In the “DNA as hardware, bioelectricity as software” analogy, what does DNA represent?

A) The operating system of a cell.
B) The physical components of a cell, like proteins.
C) The dynamic instructions that control cell behavior.
D) The applications running on a computer.

2. What does bioelectricity represent in this analogy?

A) The circuit boards of a computer.
B) The hard drive of a computer.
C) The software that tells the hardware what to do.
D) The physical proteins within a cell.

3. What are proteins, in the context of this analogy?

A) Software
B) Hardware
C) Both
D) Neither

4. True or False: According to this analogy, changing the bioelectricity (software) can alter the outcome even if the DNA (hardware) remains the same.

A) True
B) False

5. Which experiment best illustrates the power of changing the “software” (bioelectricity) to alter biological form?

A) Galvani’s experiments with frog legs.
B) The creation of two-headed planarians by manipulating gap junctions.
C) The discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.
D) The sequencing of the human genome.

6. The patterns of voltage gradients across cells and tissues are encoded:

A) Directly in the DNA sequence.
B) By hormones and growth factors.
C) Emerge from the interactions of ion channels, pumps, and gap junctions.
D) Solely by the nervous system.

7. Is the analogy perfect?

A) Yes
B) No

8. The “software” (bioelectricity) controls how the “hardware” (proteins) is:

A) Created
B) Used
C) Destroyed
D) Discovered.

9. Why is the “DNA as hardware, bioelectricity as software” analogy considered a paradigm shift?

A) It has always been obvious, no change has been required to prior research directions
B) The analogy simplifies information, thus can’t shift a complicated thing.
C) It is a fun exercise to engage people, it changes no fundamental views of understanding life.
D) It suggests that we can profoundly alter biological form and function by manipulating bioelectrical signals, even without changing the genome.

10. The analogy *is not perfect* because, compared to the components in a regular computer…:

A)…all components in computers have an independent function and role, separate to one another
B)…life is made of matter that follows a one-way communication
C)…biological systems are much more interwined and have reciporcal relationships, rather than distinct computer modules.
D) The hardware components in a computer system only performs based on specific command.

11. Bioelectricity emerges because of:

A) Genes directly telling the bioelectric patterns.
B) Interactions between pumps, ion channels, and gap junctions, coded *by* DNA, plus that material’s environment
C) A and B
D) It is a complete mystery how bioelectricity happens.

12. True or False – a perfect, direct analogy would state that the analogy “holds perfect predictive capability”?

A) True.
B) False

13. The frog limb experiment shows:

A) Altering of the electric signals at the amputation site.
B) Normal adult frogs cannot regenerate.
C) Bioelectricity helps coordinate a growth into complex anatomical features.
D) All of the Above.

14. True or False – genes hold *all* structure-related information for making tissues?

A) True.
B) False

15. According to lesson, unexpected structures on an organism should, or can, be understood through what?

A) Focusing on pure physical material level information
B) Examining just chemicals.
C) Taking into account the wider bioelectric field profile.
D) Examining only a small genetic selection

16. Bioelectricity shows what level of organization capability compared to chemicals:

A) Less, because its less complicated than molecular biology.
B) Roughly similar.
C) Greater overall organizing and structural potential, across space.
D) B and C

17. This bioelectric information exists in the organism, physically:

A) Yes.
B) No

18. In this analogy, the expression of genes (hardware) can be influenced by:

A) The type of Computer being used.
B) The time of day.
C) The membrane potential (software)
D) Luck.

19. The “Conductor of the Orchestra” refers to:

A) DNA.
B) Bioelectricity
C) Both
D) Neither

20. To best, and most comprehensively understand an entire living system, it is useful to comprehend:

A) Hardware.
B) Software.
C) Both, because information is critical, present across multiple layers in a living body.
D) Just the Chemical Parts.

Michael Levin Bioelectricity 101 Crash Course Lesson 23: DNA as Hardware, Bioelectricity as Software: A New Analogy Answer Sheet

1. B

2. C

3. B

4. A

5. B

6. C

7. B

8. B

9. D

10. C

11. B

12. A

13. D

14. B

15. C

16. C

17. A

18. C

19. B

20. C

迈克尔·莱文 生物电 101 速成课程 第23课：DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件：一个新类比 摘要

• 传统生物学通常将 DNA 视为生命的主要“说明书”。
• “DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件”的类比重塑了这一观点。
• DNA 提供了制造蛋白质（“硬件”——细胞的物理组件）的代码。
• 生物电，特别是电压梯度模式，充当“软件”——控制这些组件如何组织和使用的动态指令。
• 这个类比强调了改变软件（生物电）可以显著改变结果，即使硬件（DNA）保持不变。
• 这个类比并不完美，因为生物系统比计算机更紧密地交织在一起，但它是理解的一个强大工具。
• 这种观点强调我们需要同时理解硬件（基因）和软件（生物电）才能充分理解生命。
• 它建议当生物细胞出现“意外”结构时，我们应该查看生物电信息。

迈克尔·莱文 生物电 101 速成课程 第23课：DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件：一个新类比

几十年来，生物学的主流叙事一直以 DNA 为中心。 双螺旋结构的发现、遗传密码的破解以及基因组学的兴起，都强化了 DNA 是生命的“主分子”的观点，即包含构建和操作生物体的所有指令的蓝图。 教科书通常将 DNA 描述为线性指令序列， கிட்டத்தட்ட就像制造生物体的配方。 而且，需要明确的是，这种观点并没有错。 DNA 确实非常重要。 它编码了制造细胞运作所需的所有蛋白质的信息。

但人们越来越认识到，这种以 DNA 为中心的观点是不完整的。 这就像拥有一台复杂机器的详细零件清单，但没有任何关于如何组装这些零件，或者何时和何地使用它们的说明。 这就是“DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件”类比的用武之地。 这是一种理解缺失部分的强大方法，也是迈克尔·莱文和其他生物电研究人员所倡导的范式转变的核心。

让我们来分析一下这个类比。 想想一台电脑。 硬件由物理组件组成：电路板、处理器、内存芯片、硬盘驱动器、屏幕等。 这些是构成计算机的零件。 另一方面，软件是告诉硬件做什么的一组指令。 它是操作系统（如 Windows 或 macOS）、应用程序（如您的网络浏览器或文字处理器）以及存储在计算机上的所有数据。

关键点是：您可以拥有相同的硬件，但不同的软件，计算机的行为将完全不同。 两台具有完全相同组件的笔记本电脑可以运行不同的操作系统、不同的程序，并拥有不同的文件。 它们将具有不同的功能、不同的外观和不同的行为。 软件使硬件栩栩如生，赋予其目的和功能。

现在，让我们将这个类比应用于生物学。 在这个类比中，DNA 是硬件。 它是制造蛋白质的代码。 蛋白质是细胞的组成部分，也是执行大多数细胞功能的主力。 它们是催化反应的酶、赋予细胞形状的结构成分、接收信号的受体以及控制电流的离子通道。 毫不夸张地说，它们是细胞机器的物理部件。

那么，什么是软件呢？ 在这个类比中，软件是生物电。 更具体地说，它是我们在前面课程中讨论过的细胞和组织之间的电压梯度的动态模式。 这些模式不是直接在 DNA 序列中编码的。 相反，它们是从 DNA 确实编码的硬件组件（离子通道、泵和间隙连接）的相互作用中产生的。

理解这种涌现至关重要。 DNA 并不是说：“在这里创建一个 -70mV 的电压梯度，在那里创建一个 -50mV 的电压梯度。” 相反，它说：“制造这些离子通道，制造这些泵，制造这些间隙连接。” 然后，由于这些组件之间的相互作用，出现了特定的电压模式。 这种模式不是静态的； 它会根据内部和外部线索不断变化。 它是一个动态系统，正是这种动态性使其如此强大。

“软件”（生物电）控制“硬件”（蛋白质）如何被使用。 它告诉细胞何时分裂、迁移到何处、变成什么类型的细胞，以及如何将自身组织成复杂的结构。 这就像管弦乐队的指挥，确保所有不同的乐器（蛋白质）一起和谐地演奏，以创造出美妙的交响乐（一个正常运作的生物体）。

这就是为什么这个类比如此具有开创性的原因。 它表明您可以通过改变软件（生物电）来改变结果——生物体的形状、功能和行为——即使硬件（DNA）保持不变。 这正是迈克尔·莱文对涡虫和青蛙的实验所证明的。

还记得双头涡虫吗？ 通过操纵生物电信号（特别是通过阻断间隙连接），莱文的团队能够创造出具有两个头的蠕虫，即使它们的 DNA 与正常的单头涡虫的 DNA 相同。 他们改变了软件，这改变了结果，即使硬件没有改变。

同样的原理也适用于青蛙肢体再生实验。 通过短暂地操纵截肢部位的生物电信号，莱文的团队能够在成年青蛙中触发功能性肢体的再生，而成年青蛙通常不会再生肢体。 他们改变了软件——肢体形成的生物电指令——这引发了一系列复杂的事件，导致完整结构的再生。

这与传统的、以基因为中心的观点截然不同。 它表明我们不需要重写整个基因组就能实现生物形态和功能的深刻变化。 相反，我们可以“重新编程”生物电软件来实现所需的结果。

现在，重要的是要承认“DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件”的类比并不完美。 生物系统比计算机更加紧密地交织在一起。 “硬件”（蛋白质）可以影响“软件”（生物电），反之亦然。 这是一种动态的、相互的关系。

例如，基因（“硬件”）的表达会受到膜电位（“软件”）的影响。 当然，基因编码的是产生膜电位的离子通道。 所以，这不是一条简单的单行道。 但即使考虑到所有这些生物学上的复杂性，这种比较仍然非常有价值。

最重要的是，这个类比对于“重新框架”的重要概念很有用。 像这样：

• DNA，作为制造物理材料的蓝图，似乎包含了关于构建什么的所有指令。 但我们可以看到，结构信息更准确地存在于基因材料和生物电中。 我们现在不应该总是惊讶于我们发现了具有意外解剖结构的细胞结构示例。 与仅考虑物理基因相比，生物电谱会讲述一个不同的故事。
• 如果出了问题（例如事故） – 纯粹的化学/物理方法只会考虑材料或蛋白质水平的修复它打开了一个世界，用于查看电压梯度。 如上所示，如果电压信号告诉细胞它患有癌症 – 这会压倒正常表达的基因。
• 相反，可能存在某些可能“没有意义”的生物学情况。 在这些情况下，我们必须检查整体生物电场。 可能有一些编码的信息指导着这些行为或结构，否则这些行为或结构看起来是全新的。

总之，“DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件”的类比是理解生物电研究所代表的基本视角转变的有力工具。 它强调了生物电信号在控制基因“硬件”如何使用方面的关键作用，并为操纵生物形式和功能开辟了令人兴奋的新可能性。 它强调我们需要同时了解硬件和软件才能真正理解生命的“操作系统”。

迈克尔·莱文 生物电 101 速成课程 第23课：DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件：一个新类比 小测验

1. 在“DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件”的类比中，DNA 代表什么？

A) 细胞的操作系统。
B) 细胞的物理组件，如蛋白质。
C) 控制细胞行为的动态指令。
D) 计算机上运行的应用程序。

2. 在这个类比中，生物电代表什么？

A) 计算机的电路板。
B) 计算机的硬盘驱动器。
C) 告诉硬件做什么的软件。
D) 细胞内的物理蛋白质。

3. 在这个类比中，蛋白质是什么？

A) 软件
B) 硬件
C) 两者都是
D) 两者都不是

4. 对或错：根据这个类比，改变生物电（软件）可以改变结果，即使 DNA（硬件）保持不变。

A) 对
B) 错

5. 哪个实验最能说明改变“软件”（生物电）以改变生物形式的力量？

A) 伽伐尼对青蛙腿的实验。
B) 通过操纵间隙连接创造双头涡虫。
C) DNA 双螺旋结构的发现。
D) 人类基因组的测序。

6. 细胞和组织之间的电压梯度模式是：

A) 直接在 DNA 序列中编码。
B) 由激素和生长因子编码。
C) 从离子通道、泵和间隙连接的相互作用中产生。
D) 仅由神经系统编码。

7. 这个类比完美吗？

A) 是
B) 否

8. “软件”（生物电）控制“硬件”（蛋白质）如何：

A) 被创造
B) 被使用
C) 被摧毁
D) 被发现。

9. 为什么“DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件”的类比被认为是范式转变？

A) 这一直很明显，以前的研究方向不需要改变
B) 类比简化了信息，因此不能改变复杂的事情。
C) 这是一种让人们参与的有趣练习，它不会改变对生命的基本理解。
D) 它表明我们可以通过操纵生物电信号来深刻地改变生物形式和功能，即使不改变基因组。

10. 与普通计算机中的组件相比，这个类比并不完美，因为…：

A)…计算机中的所有组件都具有独立的功能和作用，彼此分开
B)…生命是由遵循单向通讯的物质构成的
C)…生物系统更加紧密地交织在一起，并且具有相互关系，而不是不同的计算机模块。
D) 计算机系统中的硬件组件仅根据特定命令执行。

11. 生物电的出现是因为：

A) 基因直接指示生物电模式。
B) 泵、离子通道和间隙连接之间的相互作用，由 DNA 编码，加上该材料的环境
C) A 和 B
D) 生物电是如何发生的完全是个谜。

12. 对或错 – 一个完美的、直接的类比会说明该类比“具有完美的预测能力”？

A) 对。
B) 错

13. 青蛙肢体实验表明：

A) 截肢部位电信号的改变。
B) 正常的成年青蛙不能再生。
C) 生物电有助于协调生长成复杂的解剖特征。
D) 以上都是。

14. 对或错 – 基因包含用于制造组织的所有结构相关信息？

A) 对。
B) 错

15. 根据课程，应该或可以通过什么来理解生物体上的意外结构？

A) 关注纯物理材料层面的信息
B) 只检查化学物质。
C) 考虑更广泛的生物电场谱。
D) 仅检查一小部分基因选择

16. 与化学物质相比，生物电显示出什么水平的组织能力：

A) 较少，因为它不如分子生物学复杂。
B) 大致相似。
C) 更大的整体组织和结构潜力，跨越空间。
D) B 和 C

17. 这种生物电信息存在于生物体中，在物理上：

A) 是。
B) 否

18. 在这个类比中，基因（硬件）的表达会受到以下因素的影响：

A) 正在使用的计算机类型。
B) 一天中的时间。
C) 膜电位（软件）
D) 运气。

19. “管弦乐队的指挥”指的是：

A) DNA。
B) 生物电
C) 两者都是
D) 两者都不是

20. 为了最好、最全面地了解整个生命系统，理解以下内容很有用：

A) 硬件。
B) 软件。
C) 两者兼而有之，因为信息至关重要，存在于生物体的多个层中。
D) 只是化学部分。

迈克尔·莱文 生物电 101 速成课程 第23课：DNA 是硬件，生物电是软件：一个新类比 答案表

1. B

2. C

3. B

4. A

5. B

6. C

7. B

8. B

9. D

10. C

11. B

12. A

13. D

14. B

15. C

16. C

17. A

18. C

19. B

20. C