This past summer a terrible forest fire raced through Jasper National Park in Alberta, scorching wide swaths of the park and destroying a third of the town of Jasper; but even before the long winter set in, signs of new life were beginning to sprout. In a generation or two, the forests will have returned because those fecund and protected lands have the robustness to endure even the disturbance of a catastrophic fire and return to the condition it once enjoyed.
At a very different biological level, this time of year many of us are giving renewed attention to our physical health. New diets, reduced alcohol, and vigorous exercise plans are all efforts to change our physiology and our waistlines, to improve our cardiovascular systems and what we see in the mirror. These hopes are based on our biological plasticity; our body’s ability to respond to changes in the environment and find new ways to flourish even as our nutrition switches from Christmas cookies to salads.
A recurring principle in biology is the balance between robustness and plasticity. Plasticity, or responsiveness, is a required trait of all biological entities from cells to ecosystems. Each system must have sufficient plasticity to respond to changes in the environment. At the same time, each system needs the robustness to maintain its identity in the face of change.
For example, an individual liver cell uses the set of genes in our genome that are needed to function as a liver cell, ignoring the genes required for stomach cells or neurons. A major difference between healthy liver cells and liver cancer is which genes the cells use and which they disregard. Through every round of cell division, over the course of a whole human lifetime, we need every new liver cell to have the robustness to use just liver cell genes, whether we are fasting or feasting, in puberty or menopause. At the same time, those liver cells must have the plasticity to respond to the presence of alcohol or medications in our blood. Likewise, they need to use different genes to help us digest pizza than are needed when we eat carrots. Our bodily health depends on our liver cells displaying the plasticity necessary to change in response to every bite we eat.
At the ecological level, plasticity comes from the nested networks of interdependence that are the hallmark of ecology. The diversity of plants that fill every possible niche, each one of them turning the sunlight into green shoots and leaves, means that no matter what happens with the weather some plants will likely survive and thrive. The numerous seed eaters and other herbivores will apply pressure to plant populations while simultaneously spreading their seeds. Every individual plant is responding to its environment. Each bird is making choices for food, cover, and nesting sites. Through the responsiveness of each individual in the ecosystem, the whole ecosystem finds its plasticity.
At the cellular level, robustness comes from redundancy and feedback loops. If one gene is mutated, there is likely a similar gene that might be able to cover for it. Many of the cellular machines responsible for selecting which genes to use when have related factors with similar activity and specificity providing consistent gene choices in the face of cellular stresses. Even more importantly, most gene expression choices are part of feedback loops where, for example, the expression of liver genes will lead to the expression of more liver genes. The very nature of the cell’s identity shapes its choices and behavior, thereby solidifying its identity even in changing conditions. Redundant systems and feedback loops can work together to provide cells with biological robustness.
Maybe it is just the perspective a biology professor, but it seems to me that Christian colleges and universities could learn something important about plasticity and robustness from cells and ecosystems. How can these complex yet fragile institutions have the plasticity to respond to the changing environment while still displaying the robustness needed to maintain their identities even as they respond.
Biology would suggest that plasticity in an institution of Christian higher education can come from nested networks of interdependence paired with significant autonomy among individuals. Perhaps our schools will be more responsive when they are more tightly enmeshed in their surrounding communities, with real and meaningful relationships with local schools, churches, and businesses. When we work closely with our neighbors, we hear their needs and see their strengths. If the individuals having those conversations also have the autonomy and authority to make the changes to programs and departments in order to meet those needs and leverage those strengths, then the whole institution will display the plasticity needed to continuously respond to changing demographics, economics, and pathos.
However, that flexibility and responsiveness can’t come at the cost of our core Christian identity. To develop the robustness that our schools need, biology would offer that we develop redundant faith systems and plug into regulatory feedback loops. The “soul” of the institution cannot only be the responsibility of the chaplain or chapel office. Though they can certainly lead, spiritual formation and religious tradition are responsibilities carried by every member of the community. The general education curriculum, the priorities of Student Life, the setup of biology labs, and the decisions of administrators should all stem from and reinforce the Christian commitments of the institution. This redundancy ensures that even when one area of the college is overburdened or distracted the rest of the remaining structures will support the faith identity of the school. Prayerful coaches, Christ-like student mentors, and justice-seeking financial aid officers all pursue their callings for the sake of the Kingdom; and as they do so, they strengthen the core identity of the school.
The regulatory feedback loops found throughout biology, like the molecular interactions in the nucleus or the connections between pollinators and flowers in the woods, can also be helpful for our schools. These systems can be feed-forward loops wherein the activity in one system spurs yet more activity like it. Ideally, the messages received in general education courses are reinforced in the chapel. As students are set alight by the Holy Spirit during evening worship, they then head back to student life activities full of grace and truth. Faculty development programming should both resonate with a professor’s sense of calling and empower them to live out that calling.
There are also feedback inhibition systems in biology where the network shuts down any part that is sufficiently out of balance. When a faculty member is out of line with the religions tradition of the school, a system made up of chairs, deans, and review committees should correct the problem for the sake of the institution’s identity. When the decisions of administrators are a break from the values the school professes, the faculty senate should serve as a significant brake on those decisions.
For those of us giving our lives to Christian higher education, we long to be part of institutions that display the plasticity to respond to changing times, cultures, and demographics while still robustly holding onto the religious identities we so love. Perhaps our Maker has provided, inside of every cell within us and every ecosystem around us, examples for how to hold these tensions wisely.
