It seems to me that the article draws some very far-fetched conclusions from what is essentially just a ball of cilia flailing around.<p>The various observed categories of behavior are obviously attributable to the distribution of cilia along the surface of the anthrobot -- which push it around unevenly. Sometimes in circles, or sometimes in a straight line when the forces are balanced.<p>Sure, down the line we will be able to do some really crazy stuff by bioengineering robots like this. But not anytime soon if we're still stuck at this phase.
How did this site hijack right click/command a? I've never seen that before.<p>It's sometimes surprising to me we have such a deeply ingrained way of thinking about cells in biology, maybe that's what the authors are trying to challenge??? From reading this, I got the impression we tend to think of cells as having one "natural" or "proper" function? Lung cells are "supposed to" just line airways and wave their cilia to move mucus? To me this is a bit like if we insisted that a Roomba's "natural" state was only the straight lines it makes if on a bowling alley, and viewed its more complex navigation patterns in a living room as somehow "unexpected" or "unnatural." To me it's more logicaly that cells like any complex system, will express different behaviors in different environments?