Mother Nature's Design Workshop

abb_road writes "Scientists creating new surveillance and defense technologies are studying the insect world for inspiration. Biomimetic researchers working on devices ranging from 360 degree lenses to mine-disabling robots are using biological principals as the backbone of their work. From the article: 'The tried-and-true designs of many insects are the product of millions of years of evolution. Even so, they are not perfect models. Natural selection isn't just a matter of physiological perfection, but how an organism's traits suit it for a particular environment, scientists say. For this reason, Bandyopadhyay stresses it is important not to just copy nature's work, but to take the best parts of it and apply it elsewhere.'"

Comments

Nature is not perfect

[tygerstripes]

This is widely known - in fact it's the whole basis of Natural Selection. However, there's a more fundamental thing to consider.
There are numerous examples of technological advances (usually mechanical or chemical, since that's the focus of TFA and of nature-mimicry) which could never have been acheived through natural selection. Quite apart from their being impractical in biological circumstances the incremental, intermediary stages in the evolution of such developments would be so impractical as to render the finished "product" impossible through natural selection.
You know where this is going. The wheel.

It's thought through a lot by school-kids - why (except for micro-biological exceptions) do biological equivalents not exist in nature? The average /.er can come up with some decent reasons, no doubt.
This is not to detract from the study of nature and the possible applications of mimicking it, but I'm often surprised at how this kind of study is viewed as an "impressive insight" or whatever. Nature has been the starting point for most inventive inspirations since time began, and returning to those principles does not warrant praise.
Necessity is the mother of invention, but Nature is its wetnurse.

Re:Flight

[tibike77]

Regardless, in the end, "modern" human flight was achieved by mimicked birds afterall, at least partially.
The idea of a wing (doesn't really matter if fixed or morphable) still is the basic principle behind flying... we just didn't get the same propulsion style (propeller/jet).
Even funnier, matching engineering closer with nature and "taking the best parts" out of each WAS a complete success almost every time... just think how planes evolved from the shabby kite-like wings of early functional models towards the bird-wing like or even variable geometry airplane wings used in some of today's aircrafts.

So you see, what I can't agree with you is this part: "But even where the ''best parts of it'' apply, it still may not be the best option for man."
I'm just saying you either haven't selected "the best parts" yet, or simply our current technology can't match the required complexity/reliability.

In the end, it's all about what can be made to work or not.
As for "the idea" behind some potentially great invention in the future, chances are mimicking nature is still the best bet.

Evolution doesn't produce perfect solutions

[stokes]

Perhaps I'm just being nit-picky about hyperbole, but evolution/Natural Selection doesn't produce optimal results; it produces things that just barely satisfy the requirements for survival/reproduction. Evolution doesn't make plans in advance.