 |
 |
Lots of insights in the Ghosties thread! A few (belated) comments. The lack of a representative set of verified biomimetic case studies has come up repeatedly. Dr. Shoshanah Jacobs of the University of Guelph is building a 'BioM Innovations Database' based on a broad set of resources. So far, she has collected about 300 examples and her research assistant is interviewing as many developers as possible. The database is intended to support analysis in the process of biomimetic innovation as well as encourage development of comprehensive case studies. The fragmented and patchy record of past biomimetic innovations is a challenge that many other disciplines face. Palaeontology and archaeology come to mind: much can be inferred from a fragment of bone or pottery, sometimes stretching credulity. These disciplines benefit from an extensive body of research, a strong appreciation of the context and a willingness (if not an eagerness) to explore alternative hypotheses. An intriguing question is the point when 'bio-inspiration' turns into 'bio-explanation' or 'bio-justification'. If the act of transferring knowledge between domains is an essential component of bio-inspiration, when does the knowledge become embedded in the technology domain such that future developments no longer require the original biological analogy? I can appreciate that the biological analogy may have sparked a developer's interest but I think this a different meaning of 'bio-inspired'. At a minimum, we should reference the original work from which subsequent works are derived.