Excerpt:  Strategy & Biology, part one

At this point in The Study of Strategy, it is important to make what may be an obvious point:  by strategy, we mean human strategy, the decisions that improve the survival prospects of individuals and groups of the species homo sapiens, along with their institutions and organisations.  When, in earlier chapters, we explored the role of history or the arts in strategy, it was simpler to assume that we meant “as applied to human beings” (as opposed to animals, plants, microbes or inanimate objects and intangibles).

In this chapter, we take a critical look at the science of biology and what we might learn from biology in terms of strategy.  Yes, we will explore the worlds of zoology and botany and other organisms.  But the insights will be evaluated to the extent that they translate to human activities and events.  And, as the reader will see, there is a great deal to be learned about humans from the study of biology, especially from observing the behaviours of other species.  Just the concept of “anthropomorphism”, i.e. our tendency to attribute human characteristics to animals, calls out how effortless it is for humans to relate to animals, both domestic and wild.

Take everyone’s favourite, the taxonomic order known as primates, to which homo sapiens belongs.  Their genetic and physical resemblance to humans marks them as one of the more obvious places to seek comparisons and analogies.  From there, the student of strategy is well-placed to proceed to other species that reproduce sexually (other mammals, birds, certain insects), given the importance of reproduction to survival.  Other needs, such as nourishment, shelter, and physical and mental health, then follow, broadening the scope of comparisons to the entirety of animal and plant species, even to single-celled organisms like bacteria and algae.

One example:  scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology* in Leipzig, Germany (as reported in the Economist**) have compared how primates and humans look to each other to pick up cues or signals.  Primates, specifically adult chimpanzees, gorillas and bonobos, tended to pay more attention to where the experimenter’s head was pointing, not so much what the eyes were doing.  The opposite was observed of human children, for whom attention was paid to the eyes.  The experimental results supported the scientists’ theory of the importance placed by humans on detecting the mutual direction of gaze, as an aspect of sociability and trust.  In fact, humans, as distinct from other primates, have white scleras (the part of the eye surrounding the iris), making it much easier to detect where they are looking.  In other primates, the scleras are camouflaged.  Hence, the biologists concluded, the advantages of cooperation seem to have outlasted those of competition, in humans, over time, and may even play a role in human development beyond that of other primates.

* Tomasello M, Hare B, Lehmann H, Call J. Reliance on head versus eyes in the gaze following of great apes and human infants: the cooperative eye hypothesis. J Hum Evol. 2007;52(3):314-320. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.10.001

** Anonymous, “Eyeing up the collaboration,” The Economist (November 4 2006): 90

What does this imply for strategy?  Trust, a critical factor in social interactions including business transactions, requires a certain degree of transparency.  According to these evolutionary biologists, as humans evolved, those with white sclera thrived due in part to the ease with which anyone’s direction of gaze could be detected.  Accordingly, attempts to engender trust between contractual parties are reinforced by the overt signaling of future actions and intent (e.g. stockmarket requirements to report when one has acquired a particular threshold of equity in a different firm, and how these requirements contribute to trust in the market in general).

These studies matter, because why organism X, or a population of organism X, does Y, and how this contributes to its survival, is fundamental to understanding strategy from the vantagepoint of biology.  And, judging from the amount of published research in this area, it is of great interest to many biologists (both personally as well as professionally).

Our study of strategy and biology then shifts focus from living organisms to the context within which they thrive.  We start with external factors (go big) such as ecology and evolutionary biology, followed by internal factors (go small) such as molecular and cellular biology, before touching on the all-encompassing revolution underway driven by genetics.

In the introduction to The Study of Strategy, we emphasised the point that “strategy is the means of surviving”.  To discuss survival in terms of biology, one must start with the concept of survival of the fittest, made commonplace by Charles Darwin and his groundbreaking Origin of the Species, at the heart of evolutionary biology.  Countless studies have examined the role of competition in the natural world, to the point where we refer to the natural world as being “Darwinian”, or, as Shapiro and Varian put it, “It’s a jungle out there!”

And yet.  Scientists keep uncovering outliers to such dog-eat-dog theories of behaviour, instances of altruism and mutual support in the natural world that appear to question the concept of unrestrained competition.  And the leading proponent of the theory of altruism (known as inclusive fitness) was William Hamilton.  What Hamilton observed was that, for certain species where altruistic behaviour occurred, there was a genetic connection.  Various degrees of self-sacrifice were correlated with proximity of genetic relationship.  His work contributed to the new discipline known as sociobiology and popular concepts such as the “selfish gene.”  It added fuel to the “nature versus nurture” argument and attracted detractors.

Building on Hamilton’s work, entomologist E.O. Wilson and mathematical biologists Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita applied rigorous mathematical testing to the concept of inclusive fitness, finding that it can be applied only under very specific biological circumstances, which almost never exist (according to a recent New Yorker article*).  In fact, the relationship between haplodiploidy (the genetic quirk in some insect species whereby females are much more related genetically than males) and eusociality (an extreme form of altruism in which individuals live together in vast, cooperative societies (think honeybees)) broke down with the discoveries that many eusocial species are not haplodiploid (e.g. termites) and many haplodiploid species never evolved eusociality.

This raised a paradox:  if cooperation is such a successful strategy – eusocial species dominate their selfish cousins – then why is it so rare?  Why haven’t more creatures imitated the altruistic lifestyles of honeybees and ants?

Wilson, drawing upon his deep empirical knowledge of insects, proposed a new model for the evolution of altruism, one contingent on natural history.  In effect, eusociality only would arise once preconditions had been met, including the formation of a cohesive group over a long period of time.  Thus the relatedness of an ant colony, for instance, is a consequence of eusociality, not the cause.  Nowak and Tarnita ran computer simulations in which eusocial queens competed against solitary ones, and found that eusociality increases a queen’s birth rate eightfold and reduces the probability of her death tenfold.  A competitive advantage of this magnitude would explain why, once eusociality emerges, it leads to such striking success.  Yet the model also documented the barriers to the evolution of eusociality, since it typically requires a set of unusual mutations and very particular ecological conditions.  This debate between biologists and mathematicians continues to this day, unresolved.

Wilson, meanwhile, continued until recently to study examples of cooperation and altruism in species of woodpeckers, plants, and even microbes.  He now believes that “Selfishness beats altruism within groups, but altruistic groups beat selfish groups.”  To the extent that altruism exists, it isn’t an illusion.  Instead, goodness might actually be an adaptive trait, allowing more coöperative groups to outcompete their conniving cousins.

* Jonathan Lehrer, “Kin and Kind,” The New Yorker (March 5 2012):  36-42

Whew.  In just these two examples of the interplay of strategy and biology, we’ve seen how comparing ourselves to primates reinforces the value of overt signaling to building trust, and how studying cooperative species helps us to understand the competitive advantage of altruistic groups versus selfish groups.  And we’re just scratching the surface of the topic “strategy and biology” here.

Many subcategories of biology look within, at anatomy, physiology, immunology, molecular and cell biology, etc.  There is so much we don’t know about ourselves, but what we have learned over the past few decades is fascinating and relevant to any student of strategy.

Take neurology and cognition.  The development of the brain and its importance for the emergence of homo sapiens are key areas of interest.

With the help of new tools such as brain scanning equipment using “resting state functional connectivity” MRI data (fMRI machines), neuroscientists at Washington University* in St. Louis, USA (as reported in the Economist**)  have explored in more detail how mental maturity develops in humans, from childhood to adulthood.  Although the overall size of the brain reaches its maximum around age six, the nature of the brain changes from initial “grey matter” brain cells to “white matter”.  In conjunction, the brain matures from an organ of overwhelmingly short-range connections into one with many long-distance links.

Using fMRI data and a graph theory approach, the scientists explained why adults are better able to resist short-term impulses that confound children.  The experiments identified 39 regions of the brain that were active when adults applied themselves to different tasks, each with varying levels of surprise built in. Seven of the 39 regions looked busy when the brain was pursuing a successful strategy and maintaining a consistent effort. Eleven other parts were activated when that strategy slipped up and some innovation was needed for the person to complete the task. The scientists aggregated the two sets of regions into two distinct networks.

They then explored how the connections within these two networks might develop over time.  Working with children and teenagers, they found a correlation between age and connectivity. So they turned to a second group, made up of children, teenagers and adults, asking them to think about whatever they liked while being scanned.  The scientists measured the blood flow inside the same 39 regions of their brains and calculated which parts were acting in unison.  In the children, the two networks appeared to be a single web; in the adolescents, some decoupling of the two networks was seen; and in the adults, the brain regions acted as two distinct networks.

* Dosenbach NU, Fair DA, Miezin FM, et al. Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(26):11073-11078. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704320104

** Anonymous, “Blossoming brains,” The Economist (August 11 2007): 71-72

Now that we can image and monitor the 18 regions associated with applying successful and innovative cognitive strategies, where might this lead in terms of new products and services?  We will soon find out, given the efforts to develop brain-machine interfaces at various startups such as Neuralink and Halo, as well as at established companies such as Facebook and Google.

Finally, we turn to interdisciplinary fields involving biology for many new insights into strategy.  In our earlier edition on strategy and the arts, for instance, we explored the field of biomusicology. Another interesting example is from biophysics, specifically the use of biomimetics in optics.

A recent article in Physics Today* took a look at the emerging field of optical biomimetics, in which physicists examine structures in living systems to understand how they deliver optical effects, and explore their application to new designs and technologies.

These scientists build upon earlier discoveries that the biological world offers solutions that combine adequate optical performance across a range of properties, using a limited range of materials. In particular, biomimetics combines the colour effects achieved via chemical pigments with structural variation.  The colour effects are essentially permanent, lasting as long as the structural form is preserved.

One such material is chitin, a component of insect exoskeletons, crustacean shells, fungal cell walls, and more.  Layered chitin structures can produce strong colour effects that frequently exhibit iridescence, or variation of colour with angle.  Stronger polarization effects can be achieved with the addition of air pores that are tilted with respect to the layer surfaces.  We see such effects in many species of fish that swim near the surface of the ocean and require different optical strategies (shiny from below, dull from above) as protection, a technique known as “carpet cloaking”.

One species, the marine hatchetfish (Argyropelecus gigas), incorporates mirror-like structures and tubes, along with a blue light-producing organ. The fish matches the intensity of the blue light to the sunlight falling on its back, in effect, disappearing.  During World War Two, the UK and US military explored the use of such camouflage in airplane surface materials.

Other optical biomimetic examples include mimicking the iridescence of the spines of the sea mouse (Aphrodita aculeata) in microstructured optical fibres, the microstructures in butterfly scales (commercial prototyping underway), paints that mimic the complex porosity of hummingbird feather barbs, mimicking the structurally chiral films in beetle cuticles in titania for specialised coatings, and the use of moth-eye structures in antireflective coatings for glass windows.

* Ross McPhedran & Andrew Parker, “Biomimetics:  lessons on optics from nature’s school,” Physics Today (June 2015):  32-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2816

Pause.

Before we go further, it is worth noting that, despite the incredible advancements of the past few decades, the biological sciences remain relatively young compared with the fields of mathematics, physics and chemistry.  Many early ideas related to biology have been shown to be cultural in origin, not based on quantitative research or evidence (take, for instance, the discredited ideas of race).  Recent breakthroughs in genetics have changed so much of what we once believed to be true.  As we discover more about the human genome over time, and the role of genes in human outcomes, we redefine what it means to be human.

Imagine where this all could lead:

• what if you could determine a higher level of curiousity or likelihood of innovation in a person or group of persons, based on their genetics (relative length of alleles)?

• Or, what if you could map the complete bacteriome of an individual, and, from research into the strengths and weaknesses of different bacteria under various stresses, understand better the person’s likely response to clinical interventions (medicines, surgeries, nutritional guidelines)?

A brave new world, some would say.  More to follow, in part two.