Explanations for failures in designed and evolved systems

Engineers have long studied the origins of design features that make machines prone to failure, but biologists have only recently begun investigating why organisms have traits that make them susceptible to disease. This article compares explanations for vulnerability to failure in machines with explanations for traits that make bodies vulnerable to disease. Some global explanations are relevant for both: design deficiencies, corrupted plans, assembly variations, incorrect operating environment, and trade-offs. These similarities suggest that a common framework for failure analysis could be valuable. However, a closer look at each of the 10 global categories reveals fundamental differences: machines are built to match an ideal blueprint, while species have no perfect genome or form. Design trade-offs in machines involve balancing multiple factors such as performance, robustness, and costs, while biological trade-offs maximize only gene transmission, often at the expense of health and lifespan. Detailed consideration of these and other differences reveals how the metaphor of body as a designed machine fosters tacit creationism that misrepresents the nature of organically complex systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PNAS Nexus
Published
2025-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf086
Primary Topic
Software Reliability and Analysis Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Explanations for failures in designed and evolved systems

Guruprasad Madhavan, Jay B. Labov, Randolph M. Nesse
PNAS Nexus
Software Reliability and Analysis Research
article

Explanations for failures in designed and evolved systems

Guruprasad Madhavan, Jay B. Labov, Randolph M. Nesse
article en

Abstract

Engineers have long studied the origins of design features that make machines prone to failure, but biologists have only recently begun investigating why organisms have traits that make them susceptible to disease. This article compares explanations for vulnerability to failure in machines with explanations for traits that make bodies vulnerable to disease. Some global explanations are relevant for both: design deficiencies, corrupted plans, assembly variations, incorrect operating environment, and trade-offs. These similarities suggest that a common framework for failure analysis could be valuable. However, a closer look at each of the 10 global categories reveals fundamental differences: machines are built to match an ideal blueprint, while species have no perfect genome or form. Design trade-offs in machines involve balancing multiple factors such as performance, robustness, and costs, while biological trade-offs maximize only gene transmission, often at the expense of health and lifespan. Detailed consideration of these and other differences reveals how the metaphor of body as a designed machine fosters tacit creationism that misrepresents the nature of organically complex systems.

PNAS NexusVol. 4(4)
National Academy of Engineering (US), University of Michigan (US), Arizona State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Software Reliability and Analysis Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Explanations for failures in designed and evolved systems — Guruprasad Madhavan, Jay B. Labov, et al. · PNAS Nexus (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS