PHYSICS
OF LIFE
Committee on Biological Physics/Physics of Living Systems:
A Decadal Survey
Board on Physics and Astronomy
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Board on Life Sciences
Division on Earth and Life Studies
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This study is based on work supported by Grant 1760032 with the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency or organization that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-27400-5
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-27400-1
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26403
Copies of this publication are available free of charge from
Board on Physics and Astronomy
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Physics of Life. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26403.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON BIOLOGICAL PHYSICS/PHYSICS OF LIVING SYSTEMS: A DECADAL SURVEY
WILLIAM BIALEK, NAS,1 Princeton University, Chair
BRIDGET CARRAGHER, Columbia University
IBRAHIM I. CISSÉ, Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics
MICHAEL M. DESAI, Harvard University
OLGA K. DUDKO, University of California, San Diego
DANIEL I. GOLDMAN, Georgia Institute of Technology
JANÉ KONDEV, Brandeis University
PETER B. LITTLEWOOD, University of Chicago
ANDREA J. LIU, NAS, University of Pennsylvania
MARY E. MAXON, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
JOSÉ N. ONUCHIC, NAS, Rice University
MARK J. SCHNITZER, Stanford University
CLARE M. WATERMAN, NAS, National Institutes of Health
Staff
CHRISTOPHER J. JONES, Senior Program Officer, Study Director
STEVEN M. MOSS, Senior Program Officer
NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer
AMISHA JINANDRA, Associate Program Officer
RADAKA LIGHTFOOT, Senior Financial Assistant
LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator
JAMES C. LANCASTER, Director, Board on Physics and Astronomy (until April 2021)
COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director, Board on Physics and Astronomy (since April 2022)
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY
ANDREW LANKFORD, University of California, Irvine, Chair
MEIGAN ARONSON, University of British Columbia
WILLIAM BIALEK, NAS,1 Princeton University
JILL DAHLBURG, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (retired)
SALLY DAWSON, Brookhaven National Laboratory
LOUIS F. DIMAURO, The Ohio State University
CHUNG-PEI MA, NAS, University of California, Berkeley
ANDREW MILLIS, NAS, Columbia University
ANGELA VILLELA OLINTO, NAS, University of Chicago
DAVID H. REITZE, California Institute of Technology
SUNIL SINHA, University of California, San Diego
EDWARD THOMAS, JR., Auburn University
RISA H. WECHSLER, Stanford University
WILLIAM A. ZAJC, Columbia University
Staff
COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director (since April 2021)
JAMES C. LANCASTER, Director (until April 2021)
CHRISTOPHER J. JONES, Senior Program Officer
GREGORY MACK, Senior Program Officer (until July 2022)
NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer
AMISHA JINANDRA, Associate Program Officer
MEG KNEMEYER, Financial Officer
RADAKA LIGHTFOOT, Senior Financial Assistant
LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator
DONALD SHAPERO, Senior Scholar
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
BOARD ON LIFE SCIENCES
BARBARA A. SCHAAL, NAS,1 Washington University in St. Louis, Chair
A. ALONSO AGUIRRE, George Mason University
DENISE N. BAKEN, Shield Analysis Technologies, LLC
VALERIE H. BONHAM, Ropes & Gray, LLP
PATRICK M. BOYLE, Ginko Bioworks
DOMINIQUE BROSSARD, University of Wisconsin–Madison
SCOTT V. EDWARDS, NAS, Harvard University
GERALD L. EPSTEIN, National Defense University
ROBERT J. FULL, University of California, Berkeley
BERONDA MONTGOMERY, Michigan State University
LOUIS J. MUGILA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund
ROBERT NEWMAN, The Aspen Institute
LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO, NAM,2 University of California, San Diego
SUDIP S. PARIKH, American Association for the Advancement of Science
NATHAN D. PRICE, Onegevity
SUSAN RUNDELL SINGER, Rollins College
DAVID R. WALT, NAE3/NAM, Harvard Medical School
PHYLLIS M. WISE, NAM, University of Colorado
Staff
KAVITA M. BERGER, Director
ANDREW BREMER, Program Officer
NANCY D. CONNELL, Senior Scientist
JESSICA DE MOUY, Research Associate
CYNTHIA GETNER, Financial Business Partner
KANYA LONG, Senior Program Officer
LYLY LUHACHACK, Associate Program Officer
DASIA McKOY, Program Assistant
STEVEN M. MOSS, Senior Program Officer
CHRISTL SAUNDERS, Program Assistant
FRAN SHARPLES, Advisor
AUDREY THEVENON, Senior Program Officer
TRISHA TUCHOLSKI, Associate Program Officer
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
2 Member, National Academy of Medicine.
3 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
SABINA VADNAIS, Research Associate
HUANG-NAM VU, Program Assistant
DAISHA WALSTON, Program Assistant (until August 2022)
Preface
Every 10 years, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) survey the state of physics research in the United States. To make the task manageable, it is broken down by field, so that there are separate reports on astronomy and astrophysics; atomic, molecular, and optical physics; condensed matter and materials physics; elementary particle physics; nuclear physics; and plasma physics. In this cycle, for the first time, biological physics, or the physics of living systems, stands alongside these fields as part of physics. For many of us, this is a moment to celebrate.
It has been nearly 20 years since the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched a small program to support biological physics within its Physics Division. That effort has evolved into the Physics of Living Systems program. NSF is the sponsor of this survey, charging the committee to take a broad look at the field, its connections to other fields, and the challenges that the community faces in realizing the field’s potential (see Appendix A). Our work began at a meeting on February 6–7, 2020, with presentations from NSF staff, followed by a lively discussion. It is a pleasure to thank Krastan Blagoev, Denise Caldwell, and their colleagues for their support of the project and for their candor. We could not know, of course, that this would also be our last gathering, as the COVID-19 pandemic soon swept through the country and around the world.
The February meeting was followed by a second meeting online, April 1–3, 2020. At these two events we heard from a number of colleagues—chosen to complement the expertise of the committee—about the state of science and education in the field: Cliff Brangwynne, Lucy Colwell, Catherine Crouch, Jeff Hasty,
Ted Hodapp, Sarah Keller, Chandralekha Singh, Xiaoliang Sunney Xie, and Xiaowei Zhuang. In addition we heard from representatives of other organizations and federal funding agencies beyond NSF, and about the federal budget process more generally, from Linda Horton (Department of Energy Office of Science), Matt Hourihan (American Association for the Advancement of Science), Peter Preusch (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health), and Elizabeth Strychalski (National Institute of Standards and Technology). Further insights into an important segment of our audience were provided by Mary Guenther and Alexis Rudd (Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation) and by Dahlia Sokolov (House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology). All of these presentations led to significant discussion in the committee, and we appreciate the time and care taken by all of our speakers.
A crucial part of the decadal survey process is community input. We solicited written input through the survey website, and held two town hall meetings—one in person at the Biophysical Society Meeting in San Diego (February 16, 2020) and one online through the Division of Biological Physics of the American Physical Society (April 16, 2020). It was wonderful to hear from so many members of the community, speaking from many different perspectives—from undergraduates attending their first scientific conferences and from senior faculty; from researchers in industry, research institutes, and medical schools; and from faculty at community colleges, primarily undergraduate institutions, and research universities. As described in the report, it was exciting both to hear such a wide range of voices and to see the emergence of common themes.
The work of the committee was done in the two meetings described above and a third (July 27–29, 2020, also online), along with a series of 28 video conferences; there were numerous meetings of subgroups involved in generating first drafts of different chapters or addressing gaps in subsequent drafts. None of this would have been possible, especially in this challenging time, without the support of the National Academies staff, including Neeraj Gorkhaly, Amisha Jinandra, Steven Moss, Fran Sharples, and Linda Walker. Kim DeRose and Anne Johnson provided guidance on writing style and process. Throughout the project, Radaka Lightfoot managed the budget as plans were continually revised in response to the pandemic. At crucial moments James Lancaster came with excellent advice in his role as Director of the Board on Physics and Astronomy; late in the project he was succeeded by Colleen N. Hartman, who brought fresh eyes, insights, and enthusiasm. Very special thanks to Christopher Jones, who led this effort and provided both wise counsel and gentle reminders of the passing months.
This report argues that breadth is an essential part of the excitement in biological physics. The physicist’s approach to understanding the phenomena of life is yielding fascinating results in contexts ranging from the folding of proteins to the flocking of birds, from the internal mechanics of cells to the collective dynamics
of neurons in the brain, and more. We see glimpses of the sorts of unifying ideas that we hope for in physics, cutting across this huge range of scales. At the same time, each of these problems also connects to a larger community of biologists, sometimes reaching as far as applications in medicine and technology. Surveying all of this required assembling a committee that represents a broad range of interests and expertise, and even so each of us had to stretch to be sure that we could, together, provide our readers with a sense for all of what is exciting in the field. As expected, it has been wonderful fun for all of us on the committee to talk about all these scientific developments. Less expected, perhaps, has been the pleasure of participating in the emergence of consensus on how our excitement about the science translates into recommendations about policy on matters of great concern to the community.
The collective effort involved in producing this report has been substantial, especially in the context of the disruptions that all of us have experienced during the pandemic. I think I can speak for the whole committee in expressing thanks to the numerous colleagues, coauthors, friends, and family members who were patient and understanding with us during this time.
Finally, let me exercise the chair’s prerogative and add a personal perspective. When I was a student, physicists who became interested in the phenomena of life were perceived as becoming biologists. Physicists and biologists agreed that there were productive applications of physics to biology, but the idea that living systems posed real challenges to our understanding of physics itself was not popular. I do not think that these views were fair to the history of the field, but they were widely held. Today, much has changed, both in the substance of what has been accomplished and in the perception of these accomplishments, especially by the physics community. The search for the physics of life now is a research program rather than a fantasy, and biological physics has emerged as a branch of physics. This happened not in one dramatic moment, but through decades of progress and gradual realizations. The result is nothing less than a redrawing of the intellectual landscape, the consequences of which continue to unfold in beautiful and sometimes surprising ways. I hope that we have done justice to these remarkable developments.
William Bialek, Chair
Committee on Biological Physics/Physics of Living Systems:
A Decadal Survey
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
3 Member, National Academy of Medicine.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Thomas F. Budinger, NAE/NAM, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Herbert Levine, NAS, Northeastern University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Contents
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
PART I: EXPLORING BIG QUESTIONS
1 WHAT PHYSICS PROBLEMS DO ORGANISMS NEED TO SOLVE?
Mechanics, Movement, and the Physics of Behavior
2 HOW DO LIVING SYSTEMS REPRESENT AND PROCESS INFORMATION?
Information Encoded in DNA Sequence
3 HOW DO MACROSCOPIC FUNCTIONS OF LIFE EMERGE FROM INTERACTIONS AMONG MANY MICROSCOPIC CONSTITUENTS?
Protein Structure, Folding, and Function
Chromosome Architecture and Dynamics
Cellular Mechanics and Active Matter
4 HOW DO LIVING SYSTEMS NAVIGATE PARAMETER SPACE?
5 RELATION TO OTHER FIELDS OF PHYSICS
Molecular and Structural Biology
Cell and Developmental Biology
From Neuroscience to Psychology
7 HEALTH, MEDICINE, AND TECHNOLOGY
Imaging, Diagnostics, and Treatment
Predicting and Controlling Evolution
Neural Networks and Artificial Intelligence
PART III: REALIZING THE PROMISE
Current State of Education in Biological Physics
