Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

10.7K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
10.7K
Control Systems01:10

Control Systems

959
Control systems are everywhere in contemporary society, influencing diverse applications from aerospace to automated manufacturing. These systems can be found naturally within biological processes, such as blood sugar regulation and heart rate adjustment in response to stress, as well as in man-made systems like elevators and automated vehicles. A control system is essentially a network of subsystems and processes that collaboratively convert specific inputs into desired outputs.
At the heart...
959
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

1.3K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
1.3K
Limits to Natural Selection01:38

Limits to Natural Selection

30.8K
Organisms that are well-adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. However, natural selection does not lead to perfectly adapted organisms. Several factors constrain natural selection.
30.8K
Classification of Systems-I01:26

Classification of Systems-I

154
Linearity is a system property characterized by a direct input-output relationship, combining homogeneity and additivity.
Homogeneity dictates that if an input x(t) is multiplied by a constant c, the output y(t) is multiplied by the same constant. Mathematically, this is expressed as:
154
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

1.2K
Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
1.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Can peace be engineered?

PNAS nexus·2026
Same author

Engineering and AI: Advancing the synergy.

PNAS nexus·2025
Same author

Tacit Creationism Encourages Oversimplified Views of Functions and Dysfunctions.

The European journal of neuroscience·2025
Same author

The EvMed Assessment: A test for measuring student understanding of core concepts in evolutionary medicine.

Evolution, medicine, and public health·2023
Same author

The state of evolutionary medicine in undergraduate education.

Evolution, medicine, and public health·2019
Same author

The smoke detector principle: Signal detection and optimal defense regulation.

Evolution, medicine, and public health·2019
Same journal

Two-factor synaptic plasticity enables memory consolidation during neuronal burst firing.

PNAS nexus·2026
Same journal

Individual curiosity modulates exploration in sequential book selection.

PNAS nexus·2026
Same journal

On phase transitions to interdisciplinary and convergent research.

PNAS nexus·2026
Same journal

Confident judgments of (mis)information veracity are more, rather than less, accurate.

PNAS nexus·2026
Same journal

Can AI help reduce prejudice? Evaluating the effectiveness of AI-powered personalized persuasion on support for transgender rights.

PNAS nexus·2026
Same journal

A cultural explanation for parole decisions in the United States.

PNAS nexus·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 9, 2025

Characterization of Complex Systems Using the Design of Experiments Approach: Transient Protein Expression in Tobacco as a Case Study
20:24

Characterization of Complex Systems Using the Design of Experiments Approach: Transient Protein Expression in Tobacco as a Case Study

Published on: January 31, 2014

16.4K

Explanations for failures in designed and evolved systems.

Randolph M Nesse1,2, Jay B Labov3, Guru Madhavan3

  • 1Center for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.

PNAS Nexus
|May 1, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This study compares why machines and organisms are vulnerable to failure. While some reasons overlap, fundamental differences exist, particularly in design trade-offs and the absence of a perfect blueprint in biology, challenging the machine metaphor for living systems.

Keywords:
diseaseengineeringevolutionary medicinefailure analysistacit creationism

More Related Videos

Following the Dynamics of Structural Variants in Experimentally Evolved Populations
04:52

Following the Dynamics of Structural Variants in Experimentally Evolved Populations

Published on: February 3, 2023

898
Designing Automated, High-throughput, Continuous Cell Growth Experiments Using eVOLVER
07:26

Designing Automated, High-throughput, Continuous Cell Growth Experiments Using eVOLVER

Published on: May 19, 2019

11.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 9, 2025

Characterization of Complex Systems Using the Design of Experiments Approach: Transient Protein Expression in Tobacco as a Case Study
20:24

Characterization of Complex Systems Using the Design of Experiments Approach: Transient Protein Expression in Tobacco as a Case Study

Published on: January 31, 2014

16.4K
Following the Dynamics of Structural Variants in Experimentally Evolved Populations
04:52

Following the Dynamics of Structural Variants in Experimentally Evolved Populations

Published on: February 3, 2023

898
Designing Automated, High-throughput, Continuous Cell Growth Experiments Using eVOLVER
07:26

Designing Automated, High-throughput, Continuous Cell Growth Experiments Using eVOLVER

Published on: May 19, 2019

11.9K

Area of Science:

  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Engineering
  • Philosophy of Science

Background:

  • Engineers analyze machine failure origins; biologists are newly investigating organismal disease susceptibility.
  • Vulnerability in machines and organisms shares some global explanations like design flaws and environmental factors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare explanations for machine failure with those for biological vulnerability.
  • To explore the implications of the machine metaphor for understanding biological complexity.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of failure explanations in engineering and biology.
  • Examination of global categories of vulnerability (e.g., design deficiencies, trade-offs).

Main Results:

  • Shared explanations include design deficiencies, corrupted plans, assembly variations, environmental factors, and trade-offs.
  • Key differences lie in machines adhering to blueprints versus species lacking them, and distinct trade-off objectives (performance vs. gene transmission).

Conclusions:

  • A common framework for failure analysis is potentially valuable but requires acknowledging fundamental biological differences.
  • The 'body as a designed machine' metaphor can obscure the nature of complex biological systems and foster misconceptions.