372 | Erik Winfree on DNA Computers and Robots

When we think of computers, we think of machines running on some kind of silicon chips. But the idea is more general: at heart, a computer is any object that takes in input, processes information, and produces output. Taking inspiration from biology, it is interesting to imagine building computers out of DNA -- a molecule that can store and process information, and is even programmable. Erik Winfree is one of the leading scientists who are using DNA to build tiny computers and even robots that can perform a number of tasks, with important implications for future biology and medicine. Blog post with transcript: https://preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/10/26/372-erik-winfree-on-dna-robots-and-computers/ Listen or watch Rolex Planet Visionaries wherever you get your podcasts. #ad Preserve your online privacy at Incogni and get 60% off an annual plan at https://incogni.com/MINDSCAPE. #ad Get 30% off your first year of the Base44 Builder plan at https://Base44.com/mindscape https://base44.com/mindscape. #ad Support Mindscape on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/seanmcarroll. Erik Winfree received his Ph. D. in computation and neural science from the California Institute of Technology. He is currently Professor of Computer Science, Computation and Neural Systems, and Bioengineering at Caltech. Among his awards are the Tulip Prize in DNA Computing, the Feynman Prize for nanotechnology, the MacArthur Fellowship, and fellowship in the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Web page https://www.dna.caltech.edu/~winfree/ Google Scholar publications https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5GQF2FwAAAAJ&hl=en Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Winfree

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 0:27Speaker 01

  This podcast is supported by GoFundMe.

• 0:30Speaker 02

  My name is Veronica. We started our fundraiser for Mariah. She was a close friend in my heart, but she was also family. She was my sister-in-law. She unfortunately passed from a car accident, so it wasn't something that we were prepared for. Shortly after we got the news, I was put in charge of helping with the funeral arrangements and everything. And just looking at the overall cost, it didn't feel right for me to ask the family that's grieving for money. That's what made me go to GoFundMe. And it just became a network of people that were willing to come together to help.

• 1:04Speaker 01

  GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform trusted by over 200 million people.

• 1:09Speaker 02

  You really do miss out on the opportunity to help people if you don't ask. When you actually put your heart, your soul into it, and you're like, this is the reason I'm doing it, it helps a lot.

• 1:21Speaker 01

  Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com. That's gofundme.com. GoFundMe.com.

• 1:28Sean Carroll?

  Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. I think we all know in the history of intellectual development, of the human race, et cetera, it took us a long time to invent the concept of the number zero, right? Like, we could count. There were people who did accounting back in Mesopotamia or whatever, and you had to figure out how much stuff you had. Once you invented agriculture, the need for accounting became very important. There's a level of abstraction that you get to when you say, there's a number that is not a counting number, the number zero, right? It doesn't represent a quantity of anything. It represents an absence of a quantity.

• 2:10Sean Carroll?

  Negative numbers, imaginary numbers, all these things are levels of abstraction that we reach. And maybe like the biggest, not the biggest level of abstraction ever, but sort of the most fundamental in this game is the idea of computation, right? The idea of manipulating information in a certain way as instantiated in matter, right? So not just in the realm of ideas or whatever, but a machine that moves things around that you can interpret at the end of the day as having done a computation, having solved a problem, having answered a question, or whatever, having performed a task. And for various reasons, it's not 100% obvious that it's the only way to do it, but we have

• 2:55Sean Carroll?

  an especially effective kind of computation as embodied in the electronic computers that I'm looking at right now as I record this message, and many of you are probably listening from right now. Pushing around electrons in silicon turns out to be a super efficient way of doing computation in a very, very flexible and powerful framework. But it's not the only way, right? Like, we've had the abacus. We have other ways of taking abstract notions of computation and embodying them or realizing them in physical matter. Indeed, our biology does this, right? We're not made of silicon. This is not Star Trek.

• 3:38Sean Carroll?

  We're made of hydrocarbons and other sort of organic kinds of things, and we have information stored in our bodies. We have information stored in the DNA in our nuclei of our cells, for example, and that gets shared with RNA. And we've been talking about this in various episodes of the podcast. So the fact that you can store information, why are you storing information in the cells of your nuclei of your body? Well, because you want to put it to use. You want to do things with it. You want to make a protein, and that protein is going to go out there and serve a function. It's an example of a computation in some very broad sense. This information processing is happening in our bodies long before human beings invented

• 4:22Sean Carroll?

  the number zero or the theory of computation or anything like that. So could you imagine taking advantage of that? Could you imagine building computers that were not necessarily faster or more practical than electronic computers, but just were very tiny? Tiny enough to be DNA-sized or even involving DNA themselves? That's what we're talking about today with Eric Winfrey, who's a professor at Caltech and one of the world's leaders in this area that is literally called DNA computation. The idea is you have a DNA molecule. Maybe you have it available because they're very useful for biology and genetics and

• 5:06Sean Carroll?

  things like that, but who cares? You forget that has anything to do with biology. You think of a DNA molecule as a way of storing and manipulating information. And then you ask yourself, can I compute with it? Can I design it? Can I build exactly the chain of nucleotides that will, on its own accord, just naturally sort of self-assemble into the form of a computation? And can I do interesting things with that? Can I build little robots with it? The answer is yes to all of these questions. And the idea goes back decades, but Eric and his collaborators are at the forefront of actually making it work. And I don't know about you, but to me, this is just mind-blowing stuff.

• 5:49Sean Carroll?

  The idea that we can build little machines, and basically, since I'm a physicist and I know about atoms, these are kind of the smallest machines you can ever even imagine building at this level of complexity. You can't build a machine smaller than an atom. You can't fit that much information into it. So we're there at the limits of what is possible, and it's still, it's hard, right? You cannot, piece by piece, assemble a single strand of DNA to do exactly what you want. You can synthesize them by the test tube full, I suppose I should say, but it's still kind of crude compared to what we can do with a silicon chip in a computer.

• 6:30Sean Carroll?

  But then you can put them in cells, or you can ask them to do things biologically that a silicon computer just isn't any good for. Then you can ask yourself, have you learned anything about the origin of life or the nature of computation in biology? And the answers to all of these things are, well, we're learning. It's all very much work in progress and things that we're discovering right now. So that's life at the forefront where we want to be here at the Mindscape Podcast. So I'm glad that we were able to make this happen. Occasional reminder that we have a Patreon for Mindscape. You could become a Patreon supporter. Just go to patreon.com/shawnmcarroll. And one of the benefits of that is that you get ad-free versions of the podcast, as well

• 7:14Sean Carroll?

  as being able to ask questions at the monthly Ask Me Anything episodes. So we encourage anyone who is so inclined to send a few dollars to the Mindscape Podcast and benefit enormously thereby. And with that, let's go.

• 7:45Sean Carroll?

  Eric Winfrey, welcome to the Mindscape Podcast.

• 7:47Speaker 04

  Well, thank you very much.

• 7:49Sean Carroll?

  So I want to ask a question, which, since I'm just a poor physicist. When you say you're working with DNA, we know we're going to be talking a lot about DNA, using it for computers, robots, all this fun stuff. Why DNA? Like, I think DNA has something to do with carrying genetic information, but I suspect that is not why you're especially interested in it.

• 8:12Speaker 04

  Right. I'm generally interested in information-based chemistry. We could talk about why information-based chemistry is interesting. But if one wants to study it sort of from the ground up, one wants the simplest example of that phenomenon to study. And DNA not only encodes information, but it also acts on information. And so it's a wonderful playground for exploring principles.

• 8:48Sean Carroll?

  You know, I got to tell the audience that Eric warned me ahead of time that he likes to get philosophical about these things, and I explained to him that this is the place to get philosophical. So right away, I'm going to ask one of these big-picture questions. We human beings draw a distinction between hardware and software when we design computers, but maybe the DNA doesn't. I don't know. Tell me.

• 9:13Speaker 04

  Yeah, I'd think of hardware and software as mental categories by which we understand things and not aspects of the thing itself. So, you know, both of those are sort of ways of looking at computation. And so for someone like myself, who was, shall we say, trained as a theoretical computer scientist, the thing that's really of interest is what is computation? And where do we see it in the world? And so that's also getting back to why I'm interested in DNA is that it's the sort of

• 9:52Speaker 04

  a wonderful example to explore the principles of computation outside of the standard technological mainstream of hardware and software and silicon and electrons and so forth.

• 10:06Sean Carroll?

  But basically, the reason why DNA is useful to you is because it can store information in the sequence of nucleotides and act on it. And that's completely, I mean, that's maybe why we use it to carry genetic information, but that the genetic information aspect is not something you're taking advantage of.

• 10:24Speaker 04

  Not at all. It's more a sort of chemist point of view of, you know, if we're going to look around for some molecules that we can put information into and we can have that information direct the behavior of those chemical systems and we can design molecular machines, what's the simplest thing to use? Proteins are pretty complicated. Carbohydrates don't do that much. Well, we could argue about that. But nucleic acids, RNA and DNA, are sort of simultaneously easy to understand in terms of their basic behavioral building blocks, their information storing building blocks,

• 11:06Speaker 04

  and have a very rich behavioral repertoire. And so that makes it sort of the ideal place to look at computational principles, given that computation is sort of the science of understanding how information directs behavior in machines.

• 11:25Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. So I can kind of imagine, you know, if we were just, like you said, being chemists interested in information processing and so forth, going through and thinking of all the different possible chemical compounds that would help us do this, and we hit on the best one, and it's DNA, and we realize, oh, our bodies also use that. Is that, is that because we lack imagination and our bodies gave us a hint? Or is that because our bodies are, biology is just that good at optimizing?

• 11:53Speaker 04

  It could be biology is just that good. I wouldn't make the argument that DNA is the best one. I would make the point that it is, at this time in humanity, the easiest one to get your holds on, your hands on and play around with. And that's because biology used it, right? So their synthetic methods, you know, there's whole technologies for how do we synthesize an arbitrary sequence of DNA, you know, from the chemical foundations. You can send an email to a company, they'll send you back a tube containing DNA with exactly the sequence you asked for, right? This is very convenient. And that's, I think, the main reason it was chosen is the tools exist for playing with

• 12:36Speaker 04

  it and not worrying about the chemistry, but getting into the computation, so we say.

• 12:42Sean Carroll?

  When did it become the case that I could send an email to a company and get a DNA strand back?

• 12:48Speaker 04

  Ah.

• 12:49Sean Carroll?

  About, approximately?

• 12:51Speaker 04

  I would say when I first got into this field in 1994, after Len Adelman's first DNA computing paper, it was probably already well-established and probably email was the mechanism. I can't remember exactly, you know, you ordered things back then too in different ways. But yeah, it's been, it's been, you know, 40 years, almost 50 years that it's been a sort of off-the-shelf chemistry.

• 13:25Sean Carroll?

  But actually, that's, you know, an interesting bigger-picture fact that you being in grad school coincides with that sort of shift in how things are done. I get this all the time with podcast guests, that like, they become the world's expert at something because it was just the right moment when they were writing grad school.

• 13:43Speaker 04

  Exactly, exactly. Ride the wave.

• 13:46Sean Carroll?

  Exactly. And then, would something like RNA also be useful, or is DNA definitely the best?

• 13:53Speaker 04

  RNA and DNA are sort of the standard go-tos in our field. They're both fantastic. If you want a little bit more chemical versatility, RNA might be your choice. It's also sometimes a little bit more confusing because it reacts in ways that you don't expect. That can be a problem.

• 14:12Sean Carroll?

  Oh, okay.

• 14:13Speaker 04

  But, but they're both much easier to work with than proteins. They're both used a fair bit. You know, if you think about the why, you know, why did biology come up with DNA or RNA? I'm sure you've heard on a lot of podcasts, you know, there's a hypothesis out there that shortly after the origin of life, or maybe at the origin of life, RNA was the dominant molecule. Now it's now in the ribosome and, and things like this.

• 14:49Speaker 04

  And so there's, if there was an RNA world, near earlier days before proteins, shall we say, took over, it almost suggests that sort of all the functions for a living cell or a living entity or a living whatever it is, and evolving whatever it is, could have been supported by RNA. And if you look at it sort of from a mathematician's point of view, you know, what is RNA? It's a string of ATC, well, A U C G, very similar to DNA's ATCG. One might argue that DNA also, if it has the same kinds of capabilities, is sufficiently

• 15:31Speaker 04

  rich in its behavioral repertoire to, you know, support all the things that life needs without the proteins, without the RNA, and so forth.

• 15:41Sean Carroll?

  And I know that there are four nucleotides that play their role in DNA. You've already mentioned them, GZTA. But aren't there other nucleotides we could imagine? Like, you know, since you're doing it synthetically, since you're not trying to store genetic information, can you go out there and use others? Or is this a matter of the email won't respond if you ask for other?

• 16:02Speaker 04

  So first, yes, there's a whole business of people inventing new nucleotides that, you know, expand the code, expand the repertoire. And that's very promising chemistry. But the emails either bounce back if you ask, you know, to get it off the shelf, you have to become a chemist to do it, or it's just really expensive. So sticking with, with just the basic four from a practical point of view, if you want to go into the lab and do experiments, is definitely the advantage. There's another advantage that I think is the primary reason I like sticking with just

• 16:42Speaker 04

  the four, is it's sort of like, well, you know, back in the 90s to 2000s, there was a big fight in the computer industry between RISC architectures and CISC architectures, the reduced instruction set versus the complex instruction set, you know? Which way are you going to do things to make the computers faster and cheaper? And I've always found the RISC architectures on the computer science side much more elegant. You know, you have a small number of building blocks, you figure out the tricks that you can play the game in a uniform way, rather than lots of idiosyncratic things. Now, in the chemistry world, you might think of DNA, or maybe even RNA, as reduced instruction

• 17:27Speaker 04

  sets for programming molecular machines to do interesting things. You might think of proteins as the complex instruction set. It can do more, maybe it can do it better if you really optimize it, but you have to work on that a lot harder to get everything tuned up just right, and you need a lot of special-purpose rules. It's harder to do things systematically.

• 17:49Sean Carroll?

  I'm not recommending it, but if you paused the podcast right now to search for your name on the internet, you would get a scary glimpse into what's public, from your home address to a list of your relatives. Incogni is here to help you restore your digital safety. And with your code Mindscape, you can get a 60% discount on an annual Incogni plan. The internet runs on data, and the fact is, a lot of your data is scattered around different places online. Some of it you probably don't even want out there, including your address, your phone number, or even your social security number. Incogni is a service that tracks down and removes your personal data from multiple sites across the web. Not just the dark web, but online directories, search sites, and commercial databases.

• 18:32Sean Carroll?

  All of those can be used by malicious actors. So Incogni does an automated search for your data and gets it removed automatically, but there's also a custom removal feature. If you find your info somewhere you don't want it to be, you can let Incogni know and a dedicated privacy expert will handle it for you. I've been using the service for months now, and you wouldn't believe how many times one's name appears in easily available records online, or how much peace of mind it confers once they're removed. So take your personal data back with Incogni. Go to incogni.com/mindscape to get 60% off an annual plan using code MINDSCAPE. That's 60% off at I N C O G N I dot com slash Mindscape. Incogni, they can't harm you if they can't find you.

• 19:20Sean Carroll?

  When girls have access to education, they gain more than knowledge. They gain the confidence, opportunity, and power to shape their own futures. Guatemalan leader Lydia Oshie is opening pathways for indigenous girls to access global education, helping people discover new possibilities while remaining rooted in the strength of their cultures and identities. Her work shows how expanding opportunities for girls can strengthen families, uplift communities, and shape a brighter future. Hosted by climber and environmental advocate Alex Honnold, Planet Visionaries celebrates the leaders whose work is creating meaningful change that can ripple across generations. In partnership with the Rolex Perpetual Planet Initiative, this is Planet Visionaries. Listen or watch wherever you get your podcasts.

• 20:04Sean Carroll?

  Okay, that actually makes perfect sense. I just learned something. So, let's get into like how you want it to actually work. So, I mean, again, my exposure to DNA is it's in the nuclei of my cells. It's storing genetic information. Occasionally, an RNA comes along and reads it. But yours are more active. So like, what is the actual dynamics of computation going on?

• 20:29Speaker 04

  I guess I would push back on the, my systems being more active. DNA and RNA play very active sort of roles in biology as well. Biology is never to be underestimated.

• 20:43Sean Carroll?

  Fair enough.

• 20:44Speaker 04

  You know, it's an incredible, you know, machine or set of machines, however you want to look at it. And our systems, you know, throw all of that out, right? What we're interested in is what is the minimal set of building blocks out of which you can build arbitrarily complex things? And so, when we do experiments, typically, we'll have DNA in a test tube, we'll have some salt in the test tube, and that's about it.

• 21:15Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 21:16Speaker 04

  So, you know, the DNA will have some information. And so, we're not taking advantage, most of the time, of complex evolved enzymes that do complex things. We're just looking at how the information in DNA dictates those behaviors. But what are the behaviors? Our building blocks are things like, two pieces of DNA will stick to each other. That's a self-assembly process. So, the first thing you need to know here is that when it's chemically synthesized, what comes back, you know, after we, we send our email out, what comes back by FedEx is a little tube of white powder. We put some water into it and dissolve it up. It's clear.

• 21:59Speaker 04

  And what's in there is many, how many? Probably 10 to the 16 strands of the sequence that we asked for, where a strand is just the single-stranded chain. It's a very floppy thing. It's a sequence of A, T, whatever. It's not even a double helix yet.

• 22:16Sean Carroll?

  I was just gonna say, so it's just a single strand?

• 22:19Speaker 04

  It's just a, it's called single-stranded DNA because it's not yet double-stranded DNA. That's what you chemically synthesize. And to get the double-stranded DNA, to have it wrap up into the sort of typical double helix form that you're familiar thinking about, that only happens if you order two test tubes that have exactly complementary sequences. So, if one of the molecules has an A, the other one in the same position will have a T, C with G, and so forth. And so, if you get exactly these complementary sequences, when they bump into each other in the test tube, maybe they'll start by bumping into each other wrong, and it won't match, and they'll fall apart again. But when they align themselves right, by chance, they'll zip up into the double helix, and that will be fairly stable.

• 23:04Sean Carroll?

  So, this is one aspect of this, that again, I think that is probably second nature to you, but not obvious to everyone. Like, when you're building a DNA computer, you don't take a single DNA molecule with tweezers and manipulate it. You have, like you said, 10 to the 16 strands right there in your little test tube.

• 23:26Speaker 04

  Yeah, exactly. And so, you know, the interesting thing about molecules, what fascinates me most about them, is that they're autonomous, right? They're Brownian, and they're autonomous. They're just bouncing around stochastically, doing their thing. But what thing do they do? Well, that chemistry tells us that. But if we can find clear ways of thinking about them, then we can get them to do tricks for us. So, you know, I talked about forming a double helix. That's in fact, could be thought of in a computational way, is an operation. If I have two molecules, and you ask, who should you stick to?

• 24:11Speaker 04

  Maybe I have 10 molecules. Who should you stick to? They bump into each other, they test all sorts of possibilities. If they find one that matches partially, they'll stick a little bit. If they find one that matches perfectly, they will stick very well. And so, this is a search process.

• 24:29Sean Carroll?

  And I think this is something that, again, people don't appreciate. Life at the nano scale is very noisy and very random, and you're not precisely controlling things like you do in the laptop that I'm looking at right now.

• 24:43Speaker 04

  Exactly, exactly. Though, of course, you're not controlling things on the laptop.

• 24:49Sean Carroll?

  Fair enough.

• 24:50Speaker 04

  Either. It's very autonomous. The electrons are moving where they want to go. In fact, they're diffusing. It's just a lot faster than the atoms diffuse.

• 25:02Sean Carroll?

  So, to do a computation, or to do self-assembly, or whatever, are we, are we changing the nucleotides in the DNA strand? Or are we, what are they, are they nudging around some other raw materials?

• 25:17Speaker 04

  There are many ways that you can think about molecules as doing computation. Of course, I guess we're sort of a stumbling block many times when people hear about DNA computing for the first time, is what do we mean by computation? So, to do computation, what does, what does that mean? The field started with Len Adelman's paper in 1984 with this, shall we say, really mind-blowing concept, that the parallelism of chemistry, if thought is performing a computation, can store information in parallel, can act on that in parallel, because everything's doing,

• 26:02Speaker 04

  you know, some kind of action by itself. And so, you have this enormously parallel information processing system. And maybe you can compete with silicon computers to compute some useful problem faster. You know, solve a combinatorial NP complete problem.

• 26:19Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 26:20Speaker 04

  And it took us at least five years to give up on that. You know, it's not happening. We're not computing with silicon. And so, you know, the option is either, okay, well, that was fun, let's move on to some real science, or to say, that was, you know, an example of, you know, shooting for the moon and landing in the stars. You know, we found something more interesting. And that more interesting thing is a way of thinking about, the way I'm putting it now, is information-based chemistry. How do you program molecular systems to carry out interesting behaviors?

• 27:01Speaker 04

  And so, my view of computation isn't solving hard problems that we want to solve with silicon computers. My view of computation, sort of the most remarkable thing about the theory of computation, is that it gave us an intellectual framework for precisely specifying behaviors, target behaviors, and figuring out how to make machines that implement the specified behavior. So, it's a theory of behaviors, more than it's a theory of working with numbers or solving problems. And, and so, that, that gives us a different perspective of what's exciting about molecular

• 27:45Speaker 04

  programming, is it's a way of, you know, a concrete way of asking, can we specify the desired behaviors of molecular systems and achieve those behaviors in a systematic way? That's what programming is.

• 28:01Sean Carroll?

  So, that's, I was gonna actually ask in my questions I had in mind, what is computation really? Because if we think like, everything's obeying law of physics, right? Like, every system has the properties that if I know its initial conditions and the laws, I can tell you where it's gonna go. But you're really thinking, you're sort of abstracting away to the input-output relationship in some way.

• 28:23Speaker 04

  Yeah, I would even say input-output is a particular kind of behavior. And computer science doesn't study just input-output functions. That's a building block for computations. But if you're a computer scientist, you might, well, what we're using right now, might program up a web streaming system in a web browser and so forth. These are computations. They're programmable systems, but they're interactive behaviors. They're just continually running and running and doing the thing that you ask them to do. It would be hard to talk about the whole thing as just input and output, and we're done.

• 29:04Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 29:05Speaker 04

  It just runs and runs and runs and runs and runs. Parts of it can be understood in terms of input and output, but that's only when you're breaking the system down into the tiny little pieces. Input-output is sort of like a spring in physics. It's what you build things out of.

• 29:19Sean Carroll?

  Yes, good, fair enough. Which I guess is the other place I wanted to go. In traditional computer science, let's call it that, we have these ideas of gates and circuits and logic and algorithms. And so is the goal to reproduce all that in DNA? Are you going to make a not gate or the equivalent thereof?

• 29:42Speaker 04

  We certainly have, but I wouldn't call that the goal.

• 29:45Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 29:47Speaker 04

  I would say a more interesting goal is, well, think about the history of computing. Babbage built these gears and levers and these machines for computing out of mechanical devices. And then we got to electronic devices and vacuum tubes. And there were all these components that people were trying to build systems out of. And at some point, they realized, and Claude Shannon contributed enormously to this, they realized that, ah, thinking about these in terms of Boolean logic is a good abstraction. It fits the materials that we have. It fits the components we have.

• 30:32Speaker 04

  And we can think about computation at the Boolean level and then build computers out of AND gates and OR gates and memory units and so forth. And so the larger question for molecular systems, if we think about them as information-based chemistry, is what are the natural building blocks for behaviors at the molecular scale? I've already talked about one, searching for a binding partner.

• 30:58Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 30:58Speaker 04

  Right? So sticking, self-assembly, that is directed by the information carried by the molecule, DNA with sequence one binds to DNA with sequence complement of one as soon as they find each other. That's a building block. And so if you follow the computer science trajectory, once you have your building blocks, you look at the smallest subset of building blocks that you can handle at the moment, and you ask, what can those building blocks achieve? And that's a very interesting question, right? It's known in computer science. For example, if you have an AND gate, you can build circuits out of it,

• 31:42Speaker 04

  but they're all pretty boring because all you've got is AND gates.

• 31:44Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 31:45Speaker 04

  So you need to toss in maybe, well, if you have AND gates and OR gates, you can also do more. Turns out that's still boring. You need to add in a not gate, and now you've got the full set of circuits that you'd like to build.

• 32:01Sean Carroll?

  So rather than just reproducing the gates story that we have from classical computation, you're taking a step back and saying, look, we're doing something very different here. Maybe the natural building blocks are different.

• 32:14Speaker 04

  Exactly, exactly. And so we may be, I would say, the last 30 years of my career has been trying out different ideas here and seeing how far they go. And so we've explored some kinds of things. Programmable self-assembly dictated by DNA sequences that bind to each other. That's your building block. How can you put that building block together? And by putting it together in different ways, like building different circuits out of AND, OR, and NOT gates, can you get different behaviors on the molecular side? So self-assembly, piece one. But then there's some other ones. There's polymers can fold. So polymer folding is maybe another building block. And then you can have chemical reactions.

• 32:58Speaker 04

  A plus B goes to C. Is that another kind of building block? And we could continue looking for building blocks until we think, ah, this is getting really too crazy. Let's smooth it down and find the smallest set of building blocks that really account for the kinds of systems that would be interesting to understand, the kind of behaviors at the molecular level that would be interesting to understand.

• 33:22Sean Carroll?

  So, okay, I think I'm getting closer to my original question. I want to understand the physical stuff being pushed around. So you have some DNA strands, and you're not changing the order of the nucleotides, I believe, but you are letting the strands attach to each other or attach to themselves if they want to fold. And do they grab onto other things in the environment? Or is it just each other they're interacting with?

• 33:53Speaker 04

  So if you talk about the field at large, many people are using DNA, programmable DNA. The field's sometimes called DNA nanotechnology, if we want to use that kind of jargon. But people use DNA nanotechnology to interface with other chemistry. Because if you can program the DNA nanotechnology, if you can program machines that behave in a certain way, then when they're contacting other more specialized chemistry, well, they can get to do something neat. And so from that perspective, another analogy is if you're building a robot,

• 34:33Speaker 04

  your robot has some sensors, some cameras, some microphones, some other kinds of sensors, and it has some actuators, legs, muscles, things that it can do to move. And then it has a CPU in the middle that reads the sensors, does some compute, processes some information, makes a decision, and then controls the actions that the robot is going to take. And so one view, it's a metaphor, is that one way that DNA nanotechnology is used is that it's that CPU, that programmable subsystem

• 35:17Speaker 04

  that is more easily programmable than the interfacing with the rest of the physical world, the sensors and the actuators. But you have other kinds of chemistries that can, actuators could be catalytic reactions that get turned on or off, or interfacing with binding to certain proteins or other things. And then sensors, again, on the chemical side.

• 35:44Sean Carroll?

  So there's some software you need. Imagine you could just describe it in your own words, and it would get built. That's the prospect that Base44 offers. Base44 is an AI platform that turns your ideas into a site, an app, a customer portal, or an internal tool for your business. All the crucial hidden stuff like database, login, backend, and hosting are built in and already handled. We're not talking about a tentative mock-up. We're talking about the real working product. The point is that you already know what you want, and you don't want the task of building software to get in the way of your momentum. Base44 is the shortest distance between having an idea and getting up and running. And what that means is, control is in your hands.

• 36:28Sean Carroll?

  Once your software is built, you can use it right away, but you can also change it as you like. You can add what's missing and keep building. Base44 helps you be ready when people show up. Turn interest, demand, and your idea for a workflow into real software that lets you move on to the next step. So sign up through our link and get 30% off the builder plan for your first year. The link is just base44.com/mindscape. That's B-A-S-E four four dot com slash Mindscape.

• 36:58Speaker 05

  There's a better way to buy blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery, and it's called Three Day Blinds. Three Day Blinds is the leading manufacturer of custom blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery, and we've been doing this for over 45 years, so we really know our stuff. Here's what makes us different. A professional design consulting comes right to your home with tons of samples, helps you pick the right style, takes precise measurements, and even handles the installation. No guesswork, no DIY disasters. Whether you want more privacy, better light control, or to upgrade your home with motorized or smart blinds, Three Day Blinds has thousands of options to fit any style or budget. So for a free, no-charge, no-obligation consultation,

• 37:41Speaker 05

  head to three day blinds dot com slash podcast for our buy one, get one 50% off deal. That's the number three, D A Y blinds dot com slash podcast.

• 37:53Sean Carroll?

  And just because I'm not at all a chemist, and I want to sort of understand a little bit of the nitty-gritty, like, how long are your DNA sequences in the little test tube?

• 38:04Speaker 04

  That's a fair question. Right now, when you send your email to the company, the cheapest thing to get is going to be the single-stranded DNA pieces that are shorter than 200 nucleotides.

• 38:18Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 38:19Speaker 04

  So, you know, that's, well, that's one word in many computers, you know, 64 bits. Maybe on advanced computers, 128 bits. You know, that's comparable to the size of the individual molecules that we get. So, you know, one memory element of a modern computer roughly corresponds to the size of a molecule we make. But we can order many of them, so we'll often design systems, I shouldn't say often, because, you know, these are the sort of the frontiers of our field,

• 39:01Speaker 04

  is you design 1,000, maybe even 20,000 different molecules, and they interact together in a system way to either self-assemble a structure, carry out a information processing cascade, or do some other neat thing in the test tube. So that's the most common one. Then there's a little asterisk, which is that every now and again, we borrow from biology. One area in DNA nanotechnology is called DNA origami, and with DNA origami, one starts with about a seven-kilobase molecule of DNA,

• 39:42Speaker 04

  and then cause it to fold or undergo different kinds of transformations.

• 39:47Sean Carroll?

  So if one were a grad student in your lab, would one be like coming up with a sequence of nucleotides to email the company to, and then get them back and form in the test tube?

• 40:01Speaker 04

  That's what one does, yes. So, you know, one has an idea. One translates that into sort of a specific objective, and then one writes some code to design the sequence. You know, there's some off-the-shelf ways of designing sequences. You just download the software and do it, and, you know, you get some of the software outputs in email that you can send to the company. Often, if you're doing something more frontier, you're writing your own sequence design software for your specific challenge.

• 40:34Sean Carroll?

  And then, I'm sure we're going to be skipping over a lot of steps that are very important in the life of that graduate student, but then we, you know, take our different test tubes, and we mix them together, and we measure. Now, we have to be chemists, right? We have to figure out what came out of all that.

• 40:48Speaker 04

  Yeah. The two kinds of experiments that are most common, I'll give three. One is atomic force microscopy. This is sort of where I cut my teeth, shall we say. And that's great for looking at structures. If you can assemble a structure that's more or less flat, but has an interesting shape, then you can prove that it assembled properly by looking at it. And atomic force microscopy is sort of special because you can get sometimes down to almost a nanometer resolution to see individual molecules. It does that because it's not an optical-based microscopy technique.

• 41:33Speaker 04

  It's actually more like a little needle that scrapes along a surface, feeling the bumps. And so your molecules are bumps. And if you, you know, one of the famous examples is of DNA origami that folds a piece of DNA into a smiley face. If, when the atomic force microscope scrapes its needle across the surface, and it sees, you know, a pattern of bumps that looks like a smiley face, okay, great. That didn't happen by accident.

• 42:03Sean Carroll?

  Right. I mean, that's very useful knowledge, because I think a lot of people see the images that, you know, when a news press release comes out of the smiley face or whatever, or IBM, you know, written in different things, but, and they think that someone took a picture of that with their camera, but it's a very different technique.

• 42:22Speaker 04

  Yeah. I mean, red light is, what, wavelength 500 nanometers? The smiley face was about 80 nanometers? So, it's smaller than a photon.

• 42:32Sean Carroll?

  Right, good. Okay, and let's think about what we're going to do with these things. When you have like an algorithm in your DNA computer, is it more likely to be add 2 plus 3 and get 5? Or is it something like, take input x and y and add x and y? Is that something we can do?

• 42:54Speaker 04

  Right. So in some sense, okay, what are some programs that you can write? Many people, maybe fewer people these days, but back in the good old days, the first program they wrote was, "Print Hello World."

• 43:08Sean Carroll?

  I did that.

• 43:09Speaker 04

  Not a very exciting program. But, you know, what does it do? It outputs, shall we say, it outputs some photons on your display that are arranged geometrically, such that your eyeball reads them as "Hello World," right? It moves, not exactly matter, but certainly electric charge and photons around, and arranges them in the real world. So that's the output of a program. So this DNA origami is maybe an example of a program and an output. The output is like computer graphics. It's the picture of a smiley face.

• 43:53Speaker 04

  Okay, what kinds of program makes that? It's sort of a "Print Hello World" type of program at the molecular level, where the program was, here's a long seven-kilobase strand of DNA, and here's about 200, 300 other short strands of DNA that bind to it and stick to it and pull different parts of it together until it folds up into a smiley face. That's the program running. So that's a different view than doing some arithmetic.

• 44:28Sean Carroll?

  But could you do arithmetic? Or is it a matter of like matching the tools to the task? And like, who would ever would make a DNA robot to do arithmetic? That's a waste of time.

• 44:37Speaker 04

  Well, we did. We wasted our time that way. But, you know, the point wasn't to do arithmetic. The point was that's, you know, just like, we don't really want smiley faces that are 80 nanometers in size, right? It's a demonstration of a capability. We think we've put our fingers on some way of programming molecules to do what we want structurally. Okay, we'll prove that by making a smiley face. In this case, DNA origami was invented by Paul Rodeman, so I don't want to say "we" as in my group. But as a field. And, you know, we have also done arithmetic.

• 45:20Speaker 04

  One of my groups, this is work Lulu Chen and I did, was to design some molecules that compute the discrete square root of a four-bit number. Okay, that's an odd choice, but it, you know, demonstrated the capabilities that we wanted to demonstrate. You know, if you ask other people, "Is this something DNA strands can do?" They would probably say, "Huh?" And so you need a concrete example. And then they say, "Okay, well, this expands our way of looking at things, maybe not interesting, but at least it's different."

• 45:57Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. And I remember when I was an undergraduate, so the 1980s, and personal computers were still new, and, you know, there was not a lot of sophisticated stuff going on. So I took a whole course, "Learning Assembly Language." And, you know, today, the kids don't do that anymore. So what about that kind of hierarchy that we have in the ordinary computation world of, you know, assembly to higher-level languages, to apps? Like, today, many people don't even know about languages, right? They just use their apps. Are you doing that in the DNA world?

• 46:31Speaker 04

  I'm glad you brought that up. It's, I would say, one of the motivating reasons for me doing research is to ask exactly whether that kind of process works in chemistry. I would say, when I was first getting interested in the molecular world, and I talked to chemists as a graduate student.

• 46:54Speaker 04

  They would largely say the things that computer science does, you know, having a abstraction for what you're trying to do and compiling it down to a set of molecules that do exactly what you want. That way of approaching things is ridiculous. What you need to do is have, you know, a next experiment and then you'll find out something you didn't know and then you'll do a next experiment and then you'll get somewhere interesting. Whereas computer science has sort of staked its whole claim, you know, back in the 50s on the idea that we can set up a bunch of rules for the game and now you just play with those rules, we'll worry about the physics.

• 47:38Speaker 04

  You know, our electronic machine has the physics that manipulates things, but you can just worry about either your AND gates or worry about your assembly language, you know, things like, you know, move the memory in location 200 to location 400. That's an example of an assembly language command.

• 47:59Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 48:00Speaker 04

  Right? And so you have this whole hierarchy that you're describing from, essentially from a high level language like Python or C back in the day, down to assembly, actually an intermediate language that's a little bit more flexible than that, down to assembly language and then that compiles down onto your actual physical hardware, depending upon what chip you have. And so we'd like to do the same thing with molecules. So we've actually prototyped that sort of flow for several different kinds of systems. What we call tile self-assembly systems, what we call strand displacement cascades.

• 48:45Speaker 04

  And DNA origami is also sort of like that, although it's more like CAD actually. But we have a series of abstractions for sort of going from the most abstract notion of what self-assembly is down to more concrete notions of what self-assembly is, down to more detailed ones, down to DNA sequences, then down to the laboratory. And showing that that hierarchy is an effective way of making molecular systems that actually work, I would say that's one of the things I'm proudest of.

• 49:20Sean Carroll?

  It's worth like pausing here to reflect that what you have a lab and you have test tubes and you're doing chemistry, but not just the idea of computation, but like real heavyweight ideas from the theory of computation are very much involved here. Like what counts as a computation? What kind of system can do a computation? Like these all become very practical questions in this field.

• 49:45Speaker 04

  Practical in a very impractical way. I mean, all of our experiments that have show, look, molecules can do this. Who would have thought? They're not, look, molecules can do this thing that's useful for industry.

• 49:59Sean Carroll?

  Well, that's why I was gonna go somewhere.

• 50:03Speaker 04

  No, please don't. Let's stick to the philosophy.

• 50:06Sean Carroll?

  The philosophy will keep, will keep coming back, but.

• 50:10Speaker 04

  So let me, let me just give an example of some of those things you're talking about, sort of the ideas from theoretical computer science and mathematics that are somehow underlying some of these things. So one of the kinds of molecular systems we design are DNA molecules that essentially crystallize. But as they crystallize, that's a form of self-assembly. They don't form periodic structures, but they form patterned structures. You know, if I were to give my DNA molecules colors, they're not colored, but if I had a red one and a blue one and a green one, as they self-assemble, the brown ones stick

• 50:53Speaker 04

  to the red ones, the red ones stick to the yellow ones if it's next to a black one. And you have these sort of rules for how they come together. And then what ends up forming is this, in our hands, often a two-dimensional tapestry that has a very specific layout of the different colors. And so this is a tiling. It's a mathematical object that has been steadied for a long time. And it turns out that tilings have very deep connections to computer science. So there are questions, you know, are all valid infinite tilings periodic? No, some of them aren't. There's a periodic structures, Penrose tilings, but also square ones.

• 51:38Speaker 04

  How Wong developed with his students, some of the first really interesting a periodic square tilings. And noticed that in fact you can design sets of tiles that just stick to each other when the colors match, that exactly simulate the behavior of certain kinds of computers like Turing machines, similarly cellular automata. So these kinds of theoretical ideas are sort of implicit in the kinds of experiments we do in the laboratory where we try to show that algorithmic self-assembly, following the ideas of mathematical tilings are physically possible as a way that matter self-organizes.

• 52:20Sean Carroll?

  You mentioned very quickly there cellular automata, but the story you're telling just reminds me very much of, you know, discovering that computation can be done in these simple two-dimensional cellular automata.

• 52:33Speaker 04

  Yes, yes, like the game of life.

• 52:35Sean Carroll?

  The game of life, yeah, and all those things, but now, but it's, but it's physical matter rather than other things, which is very cool. So, okay, but you have told us that you're not competing with silicon on speed, right? You're not gonna make a DNA data center to do anything like that, but maybe you can compete on size or flexibility? I mean, it's DNA. You could put it in a cell and let it go crazy.

• 53:04Speaker 04

  Yeah, so one of the original motivations for the DNA computing field was you can store information in a very small space, right? You know, one DNA base pair is about a cubic nanometer. So if that was packed very tightly, biology knows how to pack it very tightly, you have an incredible information density. So there's now a field of DNA data storage that I would say is still, you know, trying to see whether that's economically viable. That's not my personal interest.

• 53:45Speaker 04

  I would say, you know, if you ask, you know, what is the grand challenge? The grand challenge, the thing that electronic computers can't do is interface directly with chemistry.

• 53:56Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 53:57Speaker 04

  This is, this is what biology, you know, I would say, this is the most important thing in biology, is that there's information that directs the behavior. You know, what proteins should I make? When should I make different proteins? That controls everything inside the cell. And so you have, you know, the cell is an information-based molecular system that, as we can see, controlling chemistry with logic and rules, which is what biochemistry does, is incredibly powerful at making diverse physical objects, i.e. organisms. And it's also the starting point for evolution.

• 54:39Speaker 04

  If you can store information, you can change that information, you can explore the space of possible organisms. And so biology, you know, one way of understanding biology is to understand where evolution went, what was available to it, you sort of have to understand the design space of all possible organisms. Hard thing to do, but computer science has given us this prototype of what is the space of all possible behaviors, given these building blocks? That's what we said a programming language gives you. It's a way of representing the design space of all the possibilities.

• 55:21Speaker 04

  Now you as the programmer, write specific programs and explore that design space. And so it gives us a sort of a one-shot finite description of what that design space is despite the fact that it's infinite. And so if we can take that concept and import it into the molecular world, maybe we can't understand biology, because all of chemistry and physics are available to biology, but we can understand a smaller space, the reduced instruction set of programmable DNA systems, and try to understand the design space that way.

• 55:59Speaker 05

  There's a better way to buy blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery, and it's called Three Day Blinds. Three Day Blinds is the leading manufacturer of custom blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery, and we've been doing this for over 45 years, so we really know our stuff. Here's what makes us different. A professional design consulting comes right to your home with tons of samples, helps you pick the right style, takes precise measurements, and even handles the installation. No guesswork, no DIY disasters. Whether you want more privacy, better light control, or to upgrade your home with motorized or smart blinds, Three Day Blinds has thousands of options to fit any style or budget. So for a free, no-charge, no-obligation consultation,

• 56:42Speaker 05

  head to three day blinds.com/podcast for our buy-one-get-one 50% off deal. That's the number three, D-A-Y-blinds.com/podcast.

• 56:53Speaker 06

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of 5-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 57:23Sean Carroll?

  And is there any task you would like to accomplish inside a cell that you can do very well this way? Is there like some medical thing?

• 57:33Speaker 04

  Well, I wouldn't want to do it inside a cell.

• 57:36Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 57:37Speaker 04

  My personal preference, I think biology is a wonderful proof of concept that information-based chemistry is rich, but the space of things that biology has explored is a tiny subset of everything that's possible. And so I'm much more interested in sort of exploring the sort of matter to, I wouldn't say matter to life, but matter to as complicated as life, spectrum of molecular machines, from the ground up. So a grand challenge for my field might be, if one were to take it,

• 58:18Speaker 04

  is to build a cell from scratch using only DNA.

• 58:24Sean Carroll?

  Wow.

• 58:24Speaker 04

  Okay. That wouldn't be a cell, it wouldn't be a biological cell, but it would be something like a cell. So maybe as a metaphor, Boston Dynamics, you know, 10 years ago, built a dog from scratch using silicon and plastic.

• 58:40Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 58:41Speaker 04

  And that wasn't a dog, and it doesn't reproduce, but it could walk through a forest. And, you know, we're slowly making robots more and more competent, but in a very systematic way where we can program them to do different things. So when I say it would be a grand challenge to make a cell, what I mean is could we make something about a micron in size that has many components, can sense its environment, can actuate, can take energy from its environment to stay out of equilibrium and do interesting things, maybe even self-reproduce?

• 59:24Speaker 04

  That would be a neat thing, and I think it's less ridiculous than it sounds.

• 59:32Sean Carroll?

  No, it sounds right, just the right amount of ridiculous. Although, let me, let me push back on, why do you want to make it all out of DNA? I mean, the actual cells in our bodies like have DNA to store the info, et cetera, but they have other kinds of things to do other kinds of tasks.

• 59:53Speaker 04

  This question also came up in computer science, you know, historically. Why make things just out of silicon? Why not gallium arsenide? Why not add various chemistries to the fabrication process to make it better? And the early history of VLSI was if you make all your transistors exactly the same and just arrange them differently into different circuits, you can do things systematically, you can scale, you can understand what you're doing. If you try to use all sorts of complex electronic devices, you know, weird kind of capacitor over here, weird kind of resistor here that fits into the fabrication process, you get confused and that technology grows a little bit slower,

• 1:00:35Speaker 04

  even if maybe ultimately it would have been, you know, had faster switching times and various other advantages. So there's, there's a practical scaling advantage, a managing complexity advantage to keeping your building blocks as few as possible, and then understanding that design space because it's interesting enough.

• 1:00:54Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. It's kind of, it's very similar, maybe it's exactly the same, as the complexity-complication distinction. I don't know if you're familiar with that one, but like, a car is complicated because it's made of all these parts, but the parts are all doing something very purpose-built for just to do that thing, whereas a complex emergent system has all these parts that are kind of multipurpose and they organize into, you know, some kind of hierarchy that can do lots of different things.

• 1:01:21Speaker 04

  Right. Or even very simple, like you mentioned the cellular automaton, the game of life. The parts there are almost trivial, and yet the complexity is enormous.

• 1:01:32Sean Carroll?

  Good. Okay, that actually makes a lot of sense. And something I don't want to let slip by is that we've been talking about computers and computation, and you've done that. You've also done DNA robots, which I guess is a little bit different. What, what is the difference? Because you talked about real robots, but these are tiny little robots.

• 1:01:51Speaker 04

  Yeah, so this is also work with Lulu Chen. This was sort of exploring, you know, how small can a robot be? What is the smallest, shall we say, sensing, thinking, activating, or instead of thinking, you could say decision-making? Decisions can be very small and elementary. You know, how, how small can that be? And, you know, our example was that can just be a single molecule, a single strand of DNA that has domains that are responsible for moving around on a surface,

• 1:02:32Speaker 04

  again, due to this Watson-Crick interactions that you can program, picking up a cargo, dropping off a cargo at the right designation, all controlled by these, these DNA informational barcodes. That was a fun thing to do.

• 1:02:53Sean Carroll?

  And that, but I mean, beyond fun, I can imagine, maybe because I don't understand the constraints, but if, if you can make a little nanoscale thing that will pick up one molecule and carry it somewhere else and put it down, that sounds like there's an infinite number of applications for that, I don't know.

• 1:03:13Speaker 04

  Yes, potentially. So one of the bottlenecks that sort of the early development of DNA nanotechnology has been facing is that almost all of our experimental systems have been, put some DNA molecules in a test tube, and then watch what they do.

• 1:03:32Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:03:32Speaker 04

  And what they do, of course, is settle as fast as they can towards equilibrium. You know, maybe they'll get stuck along the way, but they're one and done. And I'll mention my wife again, Lulu Chen. One of the exciting things she did last year is found a very clean way of powering DNA systems for sustained non-equilibrium behavior. And this is just by heating them up. And if you're clever, your molecules can capture energy from the heat into a metastable state, which then when they're cool, they can release in a very programmed way.

• 1:04:12Speaker 04

  And so the problem with the DNA robot that we demonstrated, I don't know, almost 10 years ago now, was that it was entirely unpowered. So it would do a random walk, which was diffusion, no direction to it. It would drop things off because that was a downhill energy step. And we couldn't even think about really exploring them to do very programmed ways that are continually driving them forward towards a specific goal. Now maybe we're in a place to start thinking about that.

• 1:04:50Sean Carroll?

  I'm very glad that you said that, because I wasn't really aware of it. But you know, I'm an entropy guy. I, I think that increasing entropy, or if you like, using up free energy is the driving force behind all biology, all thinking, all metabolism, et cetera, the development of complexity in the universe. So it's an obvious place to go. I mean, and maybe that will eventually, I'm hypothesizing here, and you can slap me down if you want, provide a motivation for hooking up your DNA information processing systems into some dumber systems that are more cell-like, that sort of are more about eating and consuming and moving around, and the DNA is like driving from the driver's seat.

• 1:05:37Speaker 04

  I won't slap you, Dan.

• 1:05:44Sean Carroll?

  But I mean, that, yeah, okay.

• 1:05:45Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think that they're fascinating questions. You know, when you get to, you know, entropy, entropy, the physics of computation. That was actually one of my, shall we say, motivating reasons to get excited about DNA computing was that prior to that, I had been reading Charles Bennett and Margolis and Tofoli and, you know, the thermodynamics of computation, not quantum, but just the sort of Brownian version thereof, how much energy does it take to compute?

• 1:06:20Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 1:06:21Speaker 04

  And I thought that those were fascinating ideas to the extent that I understood them. But I think with DNA systems, there are a lot of very concrete ways of looking at those questions. So, for example, the tiling self-assembly, we have these little DNA units that sort of start assembling into a two-dimensional crystal. During that crystal growth, if you're running it, you know, you're working at a temperature and concentrations that are right next to the melting temperature of the crystal, which is where you get the lowest error rates. At this point, molecules are assembling, dissembling, coming on, coming off, but they're overall doing a computation.

• 1:07:04Speaker 04

  They're creating that tapestry that's an algorithmic patterned tapestry. But they're doing it for as close to zero energy as you want. The closer you run to the melting temperature of the crystal, the less free energy difference there is when a piece comes in versus a piece falls out. And so you, the system is sort of naturally exactly exploring this, this regime that Charles Bennett was talking about.

• 1:07:33Sean Carroll?

  It is, yeah, that is very exciting, but it reminds me of the, a very practical question that I thought I should ask. John Preskill, who is your Caltech colleague and also a former Mindscape guest, I remember when he sort of switched from being a quantum field theorist to doing quantum information theory and became the world's expert in quantum error correction. And I just thought like, oh, well, it's too bad that the useful side of his career is over now. Like, that just sounds so boring, quantum error correction. And now I realize that I was just being dumb and it's one of the most important things out there. But presumably you have good old classical errors in these DNA computers. It is a wet, noisy environment that they're all suspended in.

• 1:08:13Speaker 04

  Yeah, very much.

• 1:08:15Sean Carroll?

  What do you do about that?

• 1:08:17Speaker 04

  Yeah, so I also spent some time reading about von Neumann's, you know, classical error correction mechanism for digital circuits and asking, you know, can some of these ideas be incorporated into the design of molecular systems? And so, of course, yes. And, you know, it takes different forms depending on the kind of system you're, you're thinking about. In the self-assembly systems, it turned out to be a little bit funny that the way to

• 1:09:01Speaker 04

  get the lowest error rates was to introduce a form of proofreading, not like John Hopfield's kinetic proofreading that sort of burns energy to do so, but a form of self-assembly proofreading that's based on cooperative interactions. So the, the growth process can't go forward unless two things come to, come, uh, come together sort of at the same time. And if one of them misassembles, then the other one won't fit and self-assembly stalls out. But you can prove some interesting theorems about the kinetics and error rate trade-off based on the, uh, the cooperativity, the type of self-assembled pattern.

• 1:09:44Sean Carroll?

  I think this is an important lesson, and you know, for the people out there listening, because sometimes it's not always obvious why professors, academics, whatever, are spending their valuable IQ points doing these fun-sounding things rather than improving the world, making a smiley face at the nanometer scaler, whatever. But so often, just, you know, showing and figuring out how you can do something specific in the real world teaches you a hugely valuable lesson you didn't even know you were wondering about.

• 1:10:17Speaker 04

  Absolutely.

• 1:10:19Sean Carroll?

  And so therefore, it sort of leads into like the last big bucket of questions that I have. Have we learned anything about life from doing all these things? About, you know, you keep talking about self-assembly, information processing, these are all words that appear when we talk about the origin of life.

• 1:10:40Speaker 04

  So, you know, I think there are a fair number of people who, who think that the central thing in life is the fact that it's based on information, right? Darwinian evolution can't happen without that.

• 1:10:52Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:10:53Speaker 04

  And, and so while there, I think there are plenty of biologists who think that making smiley faces or cellular automata patterns and DNA arrays has absolutely nothing to do with the life that they care about. To me, looking at how information expresses itself in molecular systems is the central question of understanding life. At least the one that's centralist to my heart. I won't go further than that. But I, I think maybe there's, there's another thing, just in terms of the role that different

• 1:11:37Speaker 04

  academic disciplines can sort of play and how they can interact with each other. So one thing that here, you're going to have to correct me if I get this wrong, but one historical anecdote that, that made quite an impression on me was that a lot of the key concepts in thermodynamics came from the study of the latest, greatest at the time industrial technology, the steam engine, right? So how do we understand steam engines and what they can do and what they can't do?

• 1:12:10Sean Carroll?

  100% correct, yeah.

• 1:12:13Speaker 04

  Carnot studied their efficiency and, you know, that process led to the development of notions of, of, of entropy. Well, you're an entropy guy, so you really know this. And, and free energy and so forth. And now you go to biology and can you talk about protein folding without the notion of free energy and entropy? You can't, right? This concept went from the theory of the steam engine to the theory of all these equilibrium systems, which is just everywhere pervasive throughout science. And, okay, it took a few hundred years to sort of distill which parts of that theory

• 1:12:55Speaker 04

  were the theory of the steam engine and which parts were the theory of everything.

• 1:13:00Sean Carroll?

  Yes.

• 1:13:02Speaker 04

  And so now, you know, 75 years ago or so, depends on where you pin your pin, there was a new technology, right? The beginning, not of the industrial revolution, but the beginning of the information revolution. People started building these devices that could compute.

• 1:13:23Speaker 04

  And we have the theory of the electronic computer that has been studied and developed and concepts come into play. What is an algorithm? What is decidable? What is recursion? What is modularity? What is information? This whole spectrum of ideas around the, well, the, the theory of the electronic computer. And so there has been leakage into other sciences where you say, okay, that concept, like the concept of entropy and free energy, maybe the part that doesn't have to do with the electronic computer is the theory of behavior.

• 1:14:08Speaker 04

  How do you specify behaviors? How do you analyze behaviors? These are now not equilibrium behaviors, but kinetic behaviors.

• 1:14:15Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:14:15Speaker 04

  The response, sort of rule-based behaviors. And, you know, I, I think that's what we've seen. We've seen sort of more of these concepts being applied, you know, first in neuroscience to the brain and in biochemistry and in other areas, but it's, it's going to take some time to really figure out which parts of the theory are as universally, you know, sort of a, a theory of, of, of everything for behavior and which parts are just the theory of electronic computers.

• 1:14:48Sean Carroll?

  So I love that answer. I mean, it's at my happy level of abstraction and, and grandiosity, which is very good.

• 1:14:56Speaker 04

  Oops.

• 1:14:57Sean Carroll?

  But if I were, you know, an origin of life person, I, I guess I would be pressing on, there's a fundamental issue in like, okay, when did the universe start processing information in this way? Was it because an RNA molecule happened along and interacted in a certain way? And I guess, of course, this is a big question and we can argue about it, but have we learned anything or has, has your work suggested anything to us about that kind of question?

• 1:15:29Speaker 04

  Yeah, I, I love that, that move. When I was in high school and college, one of the things that I was really influenced by was the early artificial life works coming out of the Santa Fe Institute.

• 1:15:45Sean Carroll?

  Yep.

• 1:15:46Speaker 04

  And what they were exploring, people like Chris Langton.

• 1:15:54Speaker 04

  Was the idea that maybe some of the things that we associate with life, self-replication, evolution are principles of computer programs, things that computer programs can do. And so we can simulate them on a computer and we can watch an artificial evolutionary process proceed.

• 1:16:15Speaker 04

  And the sort of first point there is that once you have a programming language, let's say, assembly language, then writing a program that copies itself is dead easy.

• 1:16:30Speaker 04

  Right? You just have a few lines that say, you know, go back, copy this memory, go put it there, go back, copy that memory, put it there. And pretty soon you've copied yourself. So, and so self-replication is a program from the artificial life point of view. Now, if we come back to spending a lot of time thinking about molecular interactions with DNA as an example, as being programming languages, then it ought to be if we found the right building blocks, that self-replication is a program in our molecular programming language.

• 1:17:08Speaker 04

  We don't maybe need to design the full Boston Dynamics micron-scale artificial cell. Maybe we just need to write one little program that self-replicates and then have artificial life in an actual test tube

• 1:17:25Speaker 04

  undergoing some kind of evolutionary process. So you were talking about sort of real origin of life with all the chemistry and, you know, how much oxygen was present at this point in time and what was the pH? And, you know, things that matter if we want to understand how it worked on Earth. But if we ask just generically, how can non-living systems kickstart? And kickstart the evolutionary process? How do you get your first self-replicator? Maybe the cleanest theoretical way of exploring that is to start with some things like a programming language, but not a complex thing running on silicon,

• 1:18:09Speaker 04

  but a subset of physics and chemistry that is a programming language.

• 1:18:12Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 1:18:15Speaker 04

  And then ask how in a simple programming language can self-replicators spontaneously organize and start evolving? So I was, excuse me for going on and on here. I was, what did I say? My thinking on this was reinvigorated two years ago when a fellow, Blaise Aguere Arcas, wrote a very compelling paper on computational life where he showed a very simple programming language, where he just took two programs and ran them against each other. One program used the other program as data and did that for a long time. And they started getting more complex

• 1:19:00Speaker 04

  despite there being no explicit goal. And then self-replicators arose.

• 1:19:06Sean Carroll?

  We had him on the podcast. It was one of the best conversations we had. I was absolutely thinking of that while you were talking. So I'm glad you already know about it. Yeah.

• 1:19:14Speaker 04

  It's fantastic, very inspiring to us. And so that paper made me think, okay, now's the time that we've got tools in DNA nanotechnology to start asking, can we do that same experiment in the laboratory?

• 1:19:29Speaker 04

  You know, I think of this as, you know, a different way of thinking about the origin of life, right? There's, there's, there's the, you know, the RNA first approach. There's the metabolism first approach. There's the blah, blah, blah first approach. I would say Blaise is, I don't think he uses these words, but, but, but advocating for a

• 1:19:56Speaker 04

  programming language first approach.

• 1:19:58Sean Carroll?

  Right, right. And in some sense, what your work is suggesting is that the gap between his computer program, literal computer simulation of that and embodying it in real physical matter might be smaller than you might worry.

• 1:20:15Speaker 04

  Exactly. Though I'm not sure why you use the word worry.

• 1:20:22Sean Carroll?

  I'm trying to put myself in the mindset of someone who thinks, you know, the origin of life is a hard problem. We'll never figure it out, et cetera, et cetera. But then you sort of come at it from these weird angles and you realize, oh, okay, that sheds light on something we've been struggling with for a long time.

• 1:20:37Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:20:39Sean Carroll?

  And, okay, so then the last question is, you know, what's, what is the future? You've given us a great grand challenge with the building the little cells thing. And I love the idea of, you know, little robots moving things around in our bodies or shaping chemistry. Sounds like the sky's the limit, but you, you should say, what do you think?

• 1:21:01Speaker 04

  So there are two things that I'm excited about doing research on sort of going forward. The first I already mentioned being, how can we power these DNA nanotechnology systems to keep going for a long time? If we wanted to do something like Blaze does and look at self-organization and, and kickstart some kind of evolutionary process, having power in the system somehow is necessary. And so what's the simplest way? And so I'm very excited about Lulucen's heat-powered system. This is a lot, an old idea in the origin of life

• 1:21:45Speaker 04

  community that, you know, hot, cold, day, night cycles.

• 1:21:49Sean Carroll?

  Gradients, yeah.

• 1:21:50Speaker 04

  Or gradients or, or cycles near hydrothermal vents, you know, might be an energy source for complex chemistry getting powered.

• 1:22:02Speaker 04

  But in our DNA nanotechnology systems, it's sort of, it's, to me at least, even more surprising because there's no chemistry going on. There's just hydrogen bonds, DNA strands sticking to each other and not, there's no formation of new molecules. And so if that's enough, that would be really exciting.

• 1:22:22Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:22:24Speaker 04

  The other thing that sort of plays into that is thinking about the kinds of building blocks that are programmable, building blocks that we can explore with DNA. But they come in different types. So I talked about self-assembly, which is sort of crystals. That's, if you wish, solid state.

• 1:22:45Speaker 04

  We also have molecules that bounce into each other and carry out reactions. A plus B goes to C. These kinds of reactions are, you might even call them gas phase. You know, they're, they're, they're in a liquid, but the, the elements we care about are usually in isolation, except every now and again, they bounce into another active molecule and do something and then go their separate ways. So that's like a bunch of billiard balls bouncing around, but changing colors. So that's gas phase. And most recently, we've been looking at how to think about programmable behaviors and information processing in dense liquids, condensates, molecules, in this case, again,

• 1:23:29Speaker 04

  DNA molecules in our concrete example, that are constantly in contact with each other, but with very low KT interactions so that they're constantly rearranging. Liquid phase. So my intuition is that if you look at what's needed sort of to make a cell-like thing, you're going to need some solid phase components. You're going to need some sort of gas phase or dilute chemistry components. You're going to need some liquid phase components. And understanding how those sort of come together into a programming language at the molecular level so that we can think of them not just in terms of sort of idiosyncratic chemistry of each type, but in some uniform way of specifying the behavior of a system and programming it.

• 1:24:14Speaker 04

  It would be excited to have, exciting to me to have more clarity on that kind of molecular program.

• 1:24:19Sean Carroll?

  Always glad to be informed that we don't know all the answers yet and there's still good things remaining to be done. So Eric Winfrey, thanks very much for being on the Mindscape Podcast.

• 1:24:30Speaker 04

  Thank you. It was a pleasure.