Biomimetics

Biomimetics is the ultimate combination between machine and nature. The article that

expresses this meaning of biomimetics is written by Julian F.V Vincent, Olga A Bogatyreva,

Nikolaj R Bogatyrev, Adrian Bowyer and Anja-Karina Pahl. It first starts off its introduction by

defining the meaning of biomimetics ; a theory/practice of using nature or biological creations to

reproduce with technology. Stating that it was coined by Otto Schmitt, an American inventor, it

lets us know that he was attempting to mimic an electrical pulse produced by a nerve and

recreate it with technology. This is where the background information of biomimetics comes

from and the fact that it mentions it was an “attempt” to produce something, however getting an

accidental reaction, lets us know that this was something that was never planned, or being

studied at all. Going further to mention the properties of biomimetics and its roles to history, we

can see that it is even relating this “newly founded science” into events that happened within the

last thousand years to find a basis in the usage of biomimetics. “However, people have looked to

nature for inspiration for more than 3000 years”.The use of “however” when relating to the

modern history of biomimetics, sets the tone that it’s not something to be really impressed by and

nothing really new, indifferent. This type of tone used shakes the validity of modern biomimetics

and its standing as a scientific category, as it’s difficult to make progress in this science as many

applications are theoretical.

Continuing on, the article approaches the topic by relating the supposed connection of biology

inspired works and saying how “Some systems may be apocryphal in their derivation, have the

status of urban myth, or be the product of over-enthusiasm”. When using “urban myth” to

describe some works of biomimetics, it comes off as a hostile tone to the science, reinstating a

critical viewpoint, and something that will never be real, false, as that is what a myth is. As the

article goes on, we gain new information, and that is that “One outcome of this study is that

biology and technology solve problems in design in rather different ways.” According to the

study, the saving grace of Biomimetics’ flaw might be TRIZ, (Theory of Inventive Problem

Solving/Teorija Reshenija Izobretatel’skih Zadach) After the explanation of what TRIZ is, it

goes onto elaborate the integration of nature and machine by explaining how trying to find the

balance between the two systems where they both don’t overtake each other, and how it is a

challenge in Biomimetics. The tone shifts with this introduction of TRIZ, somehow giving the

future of anything biomimetics-related some hope, especially when mentioning that “TRIZ is the

most promising system for biomimetics”. Despite this small glimmer of hope, the article states

“Biology is, itself, a system.” with then going on to reveal more data which clashes with the ideas

of TRIZ and Biomimetics. What this means is that a new form of the theory will have to be

created just to accommodate for the differences and changes that biology brings to the mix. The

theory was meant to be used for the creation and synthesis of anything mechanical, where

sections of a machine can be swapped out and be transformed into something new. With biology

in the mix, the article reiterates that biology is a system which has its own unique properties

which are taught by itself and has the ability to grow on its own through evolution, without need

of human input. Trying to get this point across, the tones indicate that the authors have a slight

realization that it will be an admirable goal to have; forming a bond between two conflicting

mechanics.

It seems as if the overall theme and tones presented by this article is that biomimetics should be

studied more and paid more attention. The authors of the article participated in a study later on

in which they were trying to experiment with a wheel that could work well in 0°C, and

ultimately came up with something called a “cat-paw wheel” as the answer when using the TRIZ

theory. Immediately the tone shifts and becomes insistent and urgent that there needs to be more

research done on how to implement the Theory with biological influences and examples. The

conflicts expressed are that the wheel cannot work as it is designed to have a hardened “cat’s

claw” for grip, into a soft inflated wheel. The wheel is spherical, while the claw is curved, and

retraction is difficult without damaging the soft-bodied wheel. There also needs to be instant

change when coming into contact with different terrains. Despite the conflicts expressed, they

were able to come up with a model on how such a wheel would look like. (Figure 1.) Below

With the beginning of the article being a skeptical approach on whether it’s really even possible

to combine two opposing theories, the authors encourage more research to be done to find “ a set

of common principles” which give us a better understanding of the sciences around us, whether

they are mechanical and biological. The article ends off with implying more information needs to

be gathered to fully understand how it can be categorized and utilized in laboratories and/or other

experiments. Progress throughout this article can be seen due to the usage of language and tones

deriving from earlier, which gave an indifferent view toward biomimetics, to changing

throughout their study and outcomes of their research. The authors started looking at the topic

with more interest and gaining more respect for it throughout this article and subject.

Overall, this complex subject and article with its various tones which lead from a negative
viewpoint into a positive one, ends in “That this change in our approach to technology and

engineering could be achieved by developing nanotechnology.” This hopeful tone in the ending

leaves the readers in anticipation for the future of this science and many of its discoveries

that lie ahead.

---

Source(s) Cited
Biomimetics: its practice and theory
Julian F.V Vincent, Olga A Bogatyreva, Nikolaj R Bogatyrev, Adrian Bowyer and Anja-Karina Pahl
Published:18 April 2006 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0127

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2006.0127