Norbert Hoeller wrote:
> Are there non-technical factors that might inhibit the use of biological
> solutions? Ulrike Wegst mentioned the importance of awareness and
> education,
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with Ulrike about that, and all too often
the awareness isn't there.
> The investment of time
> required to investigate and apply new methods may also encourage staying
> with the 'tried and true'.
Durn, I noticed that my income fell drastically when I became interested
in pterosaur kinematics and started devoting massive amounts of time to
them. Think the two things may be related? :-)
> Building a biological reference library using engineering terminology
> sounds like part of the solution, especially if it can express the unique
> ways that natural systems have solved problems.
I give a number of talks about pterosaur flight mechanics to
paleontologists, biologists, and engineers. I notice that my jargon
vocabulary has become an amalgam, to an extent that frustrates all three
groups (and me too). Engineers frown when I that mention something is
oriented 'caudo-ventrally', and paleo and biol folks grimace when I talk
about induced drag. I'm not sure that we can ever make everyone happy
at the same time.
> Looking back over many of
> the examples posted in this thread, is some compelling event also required,
> encouraging engineers to look outside of the normal solution set?
I think we may be stereotyping engineers here. Paul MacCready, Nevil
Shute Norway, and Robert A. Heinlein are all engineers who look(ed)
outside of normal solution sets. And I don't think that that talent is
all that rare. On the other hand, there are folks in all our fields who
will never look outside the normal and well-known solution sets of their
own fields. Tunnel Vision is part of human nature.
|