↓ Skip to main content

Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, March 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life
Published in
The Science of Nature, March 2008
DOI 10.1007/s00114-008-0368-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcello Barbieri

Abstract

Biosemiotics is the idea that life is based on semiosis, i.e., on signs and codes. This idea has been strongly suggested by the discovery of the genetic code, but so far it has made little impact in the scientific world and is largely regarded as a philosophy rather than a science. The main reason for this is that modern biology assumes that signs and meanings do not exist at the molecular level, and that the genetic code was not followed by any other organic code for almost four billion years, which implies that it was an utterly isolated exception in the history of life. These ideas have effectively ruled out the existence of semiosis in the organic world, and yet there are experimental facts against all of them. If we look at the evidence of life without the preconditions of the present paradigm, we discover that semiosis is there, in every single cell, and that it has been there since the very beginning. This is what biosemiotics is really about. It is not a philosophy. It is a new scientific paradigm that is rigorously based on experimental facts. Biosemiotics claims that the genetic code (1) is a real code and (2) has been the first of a long series of organic codes that have shaped the history of life on our planet. The reality of the genetic code and the existence of other organic codes imply that life is based on two fundamental processes--copying and coding--and this in turn implies that evolution took place by two distinct mechanisms, i.e., by natural selection (based on copying) and by natural conventions (based on coding). It also implies that the copying of genes works on individual molecules, whereas the coding of proteins operates on collections of molecules, which means that different mechanisms of evolution exist at different levels of organization. This review intends to underline the scientific nature of biosemiotics, and to this purpose, it aims to prove (1) that the cell is a real semiotic system, (2) that the genetic code is a real code, (3) that evolution took place by natural selection and by natural conventions, and (4) that it was natural conventions, i.e., organic codes, that gave origin to the great novelties of macroevolution. Biological semiosis, in other words, is a scientific reality because the codes of life are experimental realities. The time has come, therefore, to acknowledge this fact of life, even if that means abandoning the present theoretical framework in favor of a more general one where biology and semiotics finally come together and become biosemiotics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Belarus 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 182 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 16%
Student > Master 17 8%
Professor 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Other 49 24%
Unknown 29 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 74 36%
Philosophy 17 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 8%
Computer Science 10 5%
Arts and Humanities 10 5%
Other 49 24%
Unknown 30 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,120,122
of 24,721,757 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#279
of 2,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,397
of 88,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,721,757 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 88,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.