Cells and microorganisms are motile, yet the stationary nature of conventional microscopes impedes comprehensive, long-term behavioral and biomechanical analysis. The limitations are twofold: a narrow focus permits high-resolution imaging but sacrifices the broader context of organism behavior, while a wider focus compromises microscopic detail. This trade-off is especially problematic when investigating rapidly motile ciliates, which often have to be confined to small volumes between coverslips affecting their natural behavior. To address this challenge, we introduce Trackoscope, an 2-axis autonomous tracking microscope designed to follow swimming organisms ranging from 10μm to 2mm across a 325 square centimeter area for extended durations—ranging from hours to days—at high resolution. Utilizing Trackoscope, we captured a diverse array of behaviors, from the air-water swimming locomotion of Amoeba to bacterial hunting dynamics in Actinosphaerium, walking gait in Tardigrada, and binary fission in motile Blepharisma. Trackoscope is a cost-effective solution well-suited for diverse settings, from high school labs to resource-constrained research environments. Its capability to capture diverse behaviors in larger, more realistic ecosystems extends our understanding of the physics of living systems. The low-cost, open architecture democratizes scientific discovery, offering a dynamic window into the lives of previously inaccessible small aquatic organisms.

A major unresolved question in microbiome research is whether the complex ecological patterns observed in surveys of natural communities can be explained and predicted by fundamental, quantitative principles. Bridging theory and experiment is hampered by the multiplicity of ecological processes that simultaneously affect community assembly and a lack of theoretical tools for modeling diverse ecosystems. Here, I will present a simple ecological model of microbial communities that reproduces large-scale ecological patterns observed across multiple natural and experimental settings including compositional gradients, clustering by environment, diversity/harshness correlations, and nestedness. Surprisingly, our model works despite having a “random metabolisms” and “random consumer preferences”. This raises the natural of question of why random ecosystems can describe real-world experimental data. In the second, more theoretical part of the talk, I will answer this question by showing that when a community becomes diverse enough, it will always self-organize into a stable state whose properties are well captured by a “typical random ecosystems”.

Climate change is one of our generation's greatest challenges, with increasingly severe consequences on global ecosystems and populations. Machine Learning has the potential to address many important challenges in climate change, from both mitigation (reducing its extent) and adaptation (preparing for unavoidable consequences) aspects. To present the extent of these opportunities, I will describe some of the projects that I am involved in, spanning from generative model to computer vision and natural language processing. There are many opportunities for fundamental innovation in this field, advancing the state-of-the-art in Machine Learning while ensuring that this fundamental progress translates into positive real-world impact.

It is sometimes said that there are two reasons why physics is so successful as a science. One is that it deals with very simple problems. The other is that it attempts to account only for universal aspects of systems at a desired level of description, with lower level phenomena subsumed into a small number of adjustable parameters. It is a widespread belief that this approach seems unlikely to be useful in biology, which is intimidatingly complex, where “everything has an exception”, and where there are a huge number of undetermined parameters. I will try to argue, nonetheless, that there are important, experimentally-testable aspects of biology that exhibit universality, and should be amenable to being tackled from a physics perspective. My suggestion is that this can lead to useful new insights into the existence and universal characteristics of living systems. I will try to justify this point of view by contrasting the goals and practices of the field of condensed matter physics with materials science, and then by extension, the goals and practices of the newly emerging field of “Physics of Living Systems” with biology. Specific biological examples that I will discuss include the following: Universal patterns of gene expression in cell biology Universal scaling laws in ecosystems, including the species-area law, Kleiber’s law, Paradox of the Plankton Universality of the genetic code Universality of thermodynamic utilization in microbial communities Universal scaling laws in the tree of life The question of what can be learned from studying universal phenomena in biology will also be discussed. Universal phenomena, by their very nature, shed little light on detailed microscopic levels of description. Yet there is no point in seeking idiosyncratic mechanistic explanations for phenomena whose explanation is found in rather general principles, such as the central limit theorem, that every microscopic mechanism is constrained to obey. Thus, physical perspectives may be better suited to answering certain questions such as universality than traditional biological perspectives. Concomitantly, it must be recognized that the identification and understanding of universal phenomena may not be a good answer to questions that have traditionally occupied biological scientists. Lastly, I plan to talk about what is perhaps the central question of universality in biology: why does the phenomenon of life occur at all? Is it an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics or some special geochemical accident? What methodology could even begin to answer this question? I will try to explain why traditional approaches to biology do not aim to answer this question, by comparing with our understanding of superconductivity as a physical phenomenon, and with the theory of universal computation. References Nigel Goldenfeld, Tommaso Biancalani, Farshid Jafarpour. Universal biology and the statistical mechanics of early life. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375, 20160341 (14 pages) (2017). Nigel Goldenfeld and Carl R. Woese. Life is Physics: evolution as a collective phenomenon far from equilibrium. Ann. Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys. 2, 375-399 (2011).

Microbes make up the vast majority of the tree of life. While we know very little about most microbial species, large-scale sequencing is giving us glimpses of the diversity that exists both within species and in ecosystems. The challenge now is to find the patterns in this diversity and understand them. This session features provocative talks on attempts to meet that challenge.

We live in the age of the network: Internet social neural ecosystems. This has become one of the main metaphors for how we think about complex systems. This view also dominates the account of brain function. The role of neuronsdescribed by Cajal as the "butterflies of the soul" has become diminished to leaky integrate-and-fire point objects in many models of neural network computation. It is perhaps not surprising that networkexplanations of neural phenomena use neurons as elementary particles andascribe all their wonderful capabilities to their interactions in a network. In the network view the Connectome defines the brain and the butterflies have no role. In this talk I'd like to reclaim some key computations from the networkand return them to their rightful place at the cellular and subcellular level. I'll start with a provocative look at potential computational capacity ofdifferent kinds of brain computation: network vs. subcellular. I'll then consider different levels of pattern and sequence computationwith a glimpse of the efficiency of the subcellular solutions. Finally I propose that there is a suggestive mapping between entire nodesof deep networks to individual neurons. This in my view is how we can walk around with 1.3 litres and 20 watts of installed computational capacity still doing far more than giant AI server farms.