Translating Nature’s Insights: Nature, a tool for Innovation
Nature has been a source of inspiration for human innovation throughout history. From the design of aeroplanes inspired by birds to the development of strong adhesives based on gecko feet, nature-inspired innovation (or biomimicry) has led to countless breakthrough technologies. Nature-inspired innovation is the study of biological & ecological forms, functions, processes, and interactions to solve human challenges.
Introduction
The field of nature-inspired innovation (or biomimicry) has been growing rapidly in recent years, with over 10,000 research papers published in 2023, according to our research. However, the translation of biological insights into commercially viable products remains a challenge, with only many concepts never making it to the market. This gap between research and application highlights the need for systematic tools and frameworks to support the biomimetic process.
One such framework is our Nature-inspired Innovation (NII) framework, which analyses living systems based on the tradeoffs and constraints across scales exploring substance, structure, energy, information, space, and time. The NII framework helps identify potential biomimetic problems and solutions by examining how biological systems balance these components.
Another important distinction in the field of nature-inspired innovation is between the top-down "technology pull" approach and the bottom-up "biology push" approach. The top-down approach starts with a specific technical problem and seeks relevant biological inspiration, while the bottom-up approach begins with fascinating biological phenomena and explores potential technical applications. Both approaches have their merits and can be used in combination for effective problem-solving.
Our Nature-inspired Innovation Framework (NII)
Using our NII framework based on relationships between substance, structure, energy, information, space and time in living systems:
Observe how nature solves complex problems efficiently through the interplay of substance, structure, energy, information, space and time. For example, spider silk is incredibly strong yet lightweight due to its unique molecular structure and composition.
Analyse the key mechanisms and principles underlying the ingenious solutions found in nature. This involves understanding how the organization of substances, flow of energy and information, and utilization of space and time enable high performance.
Abstract the core design principles from the biological system, considering the contradictions and tradeoffs between the six elements of the NII framework. Aim to capture the essence rather than imitate superficial features.
Apply the bio-inspired design principles to the engineering problem, adapting them as needed to suit the different materials, scales and contexts of the technological domain. Novel solutions emerge from mapping between biological and engineering spaces.
Develop and test prototypes of the concept, iterating and optimizing the design based on experimental results. Emulate how evolution produces highly refined adaptations incrementally through cycles of variation and selection.
Implement the nature-inspired innovation, considering its systemic impacts and sustainability over the full life-cycle. Seek to create solutions that are resilient, efficient and compatible with ecological and social systems, as seen in natural ecosystems.
Our NII framework enables a systematic yet creative front-end design process to discover and translate relevant biological strategies to engineering applications for sustainable innovation. By considering the dynamic interactions between substance, structure, energy, information, space and time, it guides innovators to go beyond superficial biomimicry to achieve synergistic, systems-level solutions.
Using systems and systems thinking to unify biology education, by Momsen et al (2022)
Abstracting the core design principles
Abstracting the core design principles involves identifying the essential functional strategies employed by the biological system, independent of the specific biological materials or structures. The goal is to extract the underlying mechanisms that enable the desirable properties or behaviours.
This requires looking beyond the superficial features to understand how different elements of the biological system - its substance, structure, energy flows, information processing, spatial organization, and temporal dynamics - interact synergistically to produce emergent functionality.
For example, when studying a spider silk thread, the core design principles are not the specific protein sequence or the exact geometry. Rather, they are things like: using hierarchical structuring from nano to macro scales, employing sacrificial bonds to dissipate energy, aligning crystalline regions within an amorphous matrix, etc. These allow the silk to be tough yet lightweight.
Abstracting the design principles often involves studying the biological system across different scales and aspects. A multidisciplinary analysis spanning fields like molecular biology, physiology, ecology and evolution may be needed to gain a holistic understanding of how and why the system works.
The abstracted design principles should capture the relationships and tradeoffs between the different elements composing the biological system. How do they constrain and work with each other to enable overall functionality within real-world contexts and selection pressures?
Successful abstraction generates a set of scale-independent, solution-neutral design principles that can then be applied to the engineering problem. The principles guide how to combine and optimize different elements to best fulfil functional needs while working within constraints.
Abstracting the core design principles requires distilling the multi-scale, interdisciplinary understanding of a biological system down to a set of essential functional strategies and tradeoffs. This provides the bridge to translate biological inspiration into engineering applications. It is a key step in going beyond shallow biomimicry to achieve deeper, systems-level nature-inspired innovation.
Despite the development of various tools and methods to facilitate the innovation process, their adoption in practice remains limited, according to Wanieck et al (2017). As Wanieck et al state, this is partly due to the fragmentation of the biomimetics community across disciplines, leading to dispersed knowledge and a lack of awareness about available tools. Furthermore, the complexity of biological systems and the challenges of interdisciplinary communication can hinder the successful application of nature-inspired innovation.
To address these challenges and unlock the full potential of nature-inspired innovation, it is crucial to provide an overview of existing biomimetic tools, analyse their strengths and limitations, and propose avenues for future tool development and integration. By bridging the gaps between research and practice, and by fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, we can harness a greater understanding of evolutionary biology and ecology to allow us to develop more responsible solutions for the benefit of society and the planet.
In the following sections, we will delve deeper into our NII framework, the top-down and bottom-up approaches to nature-inspired innovation, and the landscape of tools, drawing insights from the comprehensive review by Wanieck et al (2017) Through this exploration, we aim to paint a clearer picture of the current state of innovation and chart a path forward for translating insights from evolutionary biology and ecology into transformative innovations.
Challenges in the Innovation Process
Despite the growing interest in nature-inspired innovation and the increasing number of research publications, translating biological insights into commercially viable products remains a significant challenge. In practice, those engaged in the process face several key obstacles that hinder the successful application of biological or ecological principles to technological innovation:
Difficulty of communication across discipline boundaries. Biomimetics needs interdisciplinary collaboration among experts in biology, engineering, design, and materials science. Different disciplines have varied jargon and methods, hindering effective communication. A unified language and framework are essential for successful partnerships.
Analysis of problems to be solved through biomimetics. Identifying core functions and constraints of a tech problem, mapping to biological systems, needs deep understanding in both domains. Tools aiding functional decomposition and analog search are vital.
The identification and understanding of biological systems relevant to a given problem. The sheer diversity and complexity of life forms can be overwhelming, and the knowledge about many organisms is scattered across various sources, from scientific publications to natural history collections. Designers and engineers often lack the biological expertise to navigate this vast information space effectively. Databases and tools that can help discover and learn about relevant biological systems are crucial for bridging this knowledge gap.
Abstracting its key principles from a promising biological model and translating them into a feasible technological solution. It requires a deep understanding of the biological system's structure, function, and context, as well as the ability to extract and apply the underlying design principles. Tools that support the abstraction and transfer of biological knowledge, such as functional modelling and biologically inspired design methods, can help address this challenge.
The fragmentation of the biomimetics community across different disciplines and the lack of widespread adoption of existing tools in practice also contribute. Many tools have been developed to facilitate various stages of the biomimetic process, from problem analysis to solution generation. However, these tools are often not well-known or easily accessible to those who could benefit from them. Improving the visibility, usability, and integration of tools is essential for their successful application in real-world projects.
To address these challenges and bridge the gaps in the biomimetic process, a concerted effort is needed to develop, disseminate, and apply appropriate tools and methodologies. By providing support for problem analysis, biological system identification, abstraction, and knowledge transfer, these tools can help practitioners overcome the barriers to successful biomimetic innovation. In the following sections, we will explore the landscape of existing biomimetic tools and discuss how they can be leveraged to facilitate the translation of nature's insights into transformative technological solutions.
Overview of Biomimetic Tools
“A fool with a tool is still a fool.”
The field of biomimetics has seen the development of a wide array of tools to support the process of translating biological strategies into technological solutions, according to Wanieck et al (2017). They identified and classified over 40 such tools based on various criteria, providing a comprehensive overview of the current landscape.
One key variable used in the classification was the class of the tool, which could be abstraction, application, analysis, or transfer. This refers to the main function of the tool within the process. Another important variable was the type of tool, such as database/catalogue, taxonomy, thesaurus, ontology, algorithm, or method. This reflects the form and structure of the tool.
Some notable categories of tools include:
Databases and catalogues: These tools, such as AskNature, provide a collection of biological strategies that can be searched and explored for inspiration. They help address the challenge of identifying relevant biological systems.
Taxonomies, thesauri, and ontologies: Tools in this category, like BiOPS (Biologically Inspired Problem Solving) and Ontology Explorer, organise biological knowledge in a structured way to facilitate search and understanding. They contribute to bridging the knowledge gap between biology and engineering.
Methods: This category includes tools that provide a systematic approach to biomimetic problem-solving, such as the Four-Box method. These tools guide practitioners through the process and help with tasks like problem analysis and abstraction.
The classification also considered which specific steps of the process each tool facilitates (problem analysis, abstraction, transfer, etc.), as well as whether the tool supports a solution-based approach (starting from a biological strategy), a problem-driven approach (starting from a technical problem), or both.
Accessibility was another key variable, distinguishing between open-source, limited access, and commercial tools. The mode of availability (online, software, print) was also noted. These factors can influence the adoption and dissemination of the tools in practice.
Importantly, the classification highlighted tools that integrate our NII framework and top-down/bottom-up approaches discussed earlier. By supporting these overarching frameworks, such tools can provide a more comprehensive and structured approach to biomimetic design.
While this overview provides a valuable map of the tool landscape, the actual usage of these tools in biomimetic practice remains limited. Many tools originate from different research communities and are dispersed across various sources, hindering awareness and accessibility.
To realise the full potential of these tools, efforts are needed to better integrate them into the biomimetic process, provide training and dissemination, and foster cross-disciplinary collaboration. The classification presented by Wanieck et al. lays the groundwork for further theoretical and practical analyses to guide the development and application of biomimetic tools moving forward.
In the next section, we will take a closer look at the insights gained from this tool classification and discuss how they can inform strategies to advance biomimetic practice.
Analysis of Tool Landscape
The classification of biomimetic tools by Wanieck et al. provides valuable insights into the current state of tool development and usage. By analysing the landscape of over 40 tools, the authors identified both well-addressed areas and significant gaps and opportunities for improvement.
One key finding is that certain steps of the biomimetic process are better supported by existing tools than others. For example, the identification of biological models (step 1) and the abstraction of principles (step 3) are facilitated by numerous databases, taxonomies, and methods. In contrast, the transfer of knowledge to the technical application (step 7) is less well addressed, indicating a need for more tools that bridge the gap between biological understanding and technological implementation.
The analysis also reveals a fragmentation in tool development across different disciplines. Tools have emerged from fields as diverse as engineering, design, architecture, and computer science, each with their own focus and approach. While this diversity reflects the interdisciplinary nature of biomimetics, it also contributes to a lack of integration and standardisation. Many tools remain confined to their originating research communities and are not widely adopted in biomimetic practice.
This fragmentation, combined with the dispersal of tools across various sources (scientific literature, patents, websites), has hindered awareness and accessibility. Practitioners may simply be unaware of potentially useful tools or lack the means to easily find and apply them. The limited use of existing tools in the design of biomimetic products, as evidenced by the BioM database, underscores this challenge.
To address these issues and advance the field, the authors emphasise the need for both theoretical and practical analyses of biomimetic tools. On the theoretical side, further work is needed to compare and evaluate tools based on their effectiveness, usability, and potential for integration. This could involve the development of standardised metrics and benchmarks to assess tool performance.
Practical analyses, such as case studies and user feedback, are also crucial to understanding how tools are actually being applied in real-world biomimetic projects. By identifying best practices and common obstacles, these studies can guide the refinement of existing tools and the development of new ones that better meet the needs of practitioners.
Ultimately, improving the biomimetic tool landscape will require a concerted effort to bridge the gaps between research and practice, and to foster greater collaboration and knowledge sharing across disciplines.
In the next section, we will explore how the insights gained from this tool landscape analysis can inform strategies for integrating multiple tools and approaches to support the entire biomimetic process.
Integrating Tools for Effective Biomimetic Innovation
The field of biomimetics has seen the development of numerous tools to support various stages of the biomimetic process, from problem analysis to solution generation. However, the fragmentation of these tools across disciplines and their limited adoption in practice have hindered their potential to truly transform biomimetic innovation. To unlock the full power of these tools, it is crucial to explore how they can be effectively integrated to support the entire biomimetic process.
One promising approach is to combine tools that address different steps of the process, leveraging their complementary strengths. For example, the AskNature database can be used in the early stages to identify relevant biological strategies, while the Four-Box method can then guide the abstraction and transfer of these strategies to technological solutions. By using these tools in tandem, practitioners can more effectively navigate the complex journey from biological inspiration to practical implementation.
The integration of overarching frameworks, such as our NII framework and the top-down/bottom-up approaches, with specific tools can provide an even more comprehensive and structured approach to biomimetic problem-solving. Case studies demonstrate the power of this integration.
For instance, in the "Technical Plant Stem" project, researchers used a bottom-up approach, starting with a fascinating biological phenomenon (the internal structure of plant stems), and then analysing the key components (substance, structure, information) contributing to the stems' mechanical efficiency. This analysis guided the abstraction of design principles and their transfer to a lightweight technical structure.
Tools like DANE (a database of biological Structure-Behavior-Function models) and the Ontology Explorer (a web tool for exploring biomimetics databases) were used to support this process, showcasing the value of integrating multiple tools and frameworks.
However, the successful integration of biomimetic tools requires more than just a clever combination of methods. It also depends on fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge transfer among the diverse actors involved in the biomimetic process, from biologists to engineers to designers.
Each discipline brings unique expertise and perspectives that are essential for translating biological insights into viable technological solutions. By creating a shared language and understanding, and by actively promoting cross-disciplinary communication, the biomimetics community can break down the silos that have historically hindered progress.
Platforms for knowledge sharing, such as wikis, forums, and conferences, can play a vital role in facilitating this collaboration and transfer of ideas. The development of educational resources and training programs that introduce practitioners to the range of available tools and frameworks is also crucial. By equipping the next generation of innovators with the skills and knowledge to effectively integrate these tools, we can accelerate the adoption of best practices and the realisation of biomimicry's full potential.
Ultimately, the integration of biomimetic tools is not just about optimising the innovation process. It is about creating a new paradigm for sustainable and resilient design that learns from and emulates the time-tested strategies of the natural world. By harnessing the collective power of these tools and the diverse expertise of the biomimetics community, we can unlock insights from evolutionary biology and ecology and create a future in which human innovation is in harmony with the ecosystems that support us. The path forward is clear - it is up to us to walk it together, one integrated step at a time.
Challenges and Future Directions
Despite the growing number of tools developed to support nature-inspired innovation, significant challenges remain that hinder the widespread adoption and successful application of nature-inspired innovation in practice. One major challenge is the lack of deep biological understanding among engineers and designers.
While tools can help bridge this knowledge gap to some extent, truly unlocking nature's potential requires a more fundamental shift in how we educate and train the next generation of innovators. Integrating biology into the core curriculum of engineering and design programs, and fostering more interdisciplinary collaboration between biologists and engineers from the earliest stages of education, will be crucial to overcoming this challenge.
Another key challenge is the issue of scaling. Many of the remarkable properties and functions found in biological systems arise from complex hierarchical structures and materials that are difficult to replicate with current manufacturing technologies. While advances in additive manufacturing and materials science are beginning to close this gap, there is still a long way to go before we can fully translate nature's designs into practical, scalable solutions. Overcoming this challenge will require not only new tools and methodologies but also a concerted effort to develop the necessary manufacturing capabilities and supply chains.
Even when scaling is achievable, the limitations of available materials can still pose a significant barrier. Many of the materials used by nature, such as chitin and collagen, have unique properties that are difficult to replicate with synthetic alternatives. While biomimetic tools can help identify promising material strategies from nature, actually developing and deploying these materials in practical applications remains a challenge. Increased investment in biomaterials research and development, along with more effective technology transfer mechanisms, will be essential to overcoming this hurdle.
To address these and other challenges, there is a clear need for more robust frameworks, training, and dissemination of nature-inspired tools and best practices to practitioners across disciplines. The development of standardised curricula, online learning platforms, and professional certification programs could help ensure that the next generation of engineers and designers are well-versed in biomimetic principles and equipped with the tools they need to apply them effectively.
Establishing dedicated centres of excellence in biomimetic research and innovation, with a focus on translating academic insights into practical solutions, could also help accelerate progress and foster more cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Looking ahead, there are numerous opportunities for future tool development and integration based on the gaps and challenges identified in the current landscape. For example, there is a clear need for more tools that support the later stages of the biomimetic process, particularly the translation of biological principles into viable technical solutions.
Integrating machine learning and AI capabilities into biomimetic tools could also help accelerate the identification of relevant biological models and the extraction of design principles. Developing more user-friendly and accessible interfaces for existing tools could help lower the barriers to entry and encourage wider adoption.
Ultimately, the future of biomimetic innovation will depend on our ability to learn from nature while also adapting and innovating based on our own unique constraints and opportunities. By continuing to develop and integrate cutting-edge tools, foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and invest in the necessary research and education, we can unlock the full potential of biomimetics to drive sustainable and transformative solutions to the complex challenges we face. The road ahead is not easy, but by working together and learning from the best teacher of all - nature herself - we can chart a path towards a brighter, more resilient future.
Conclusions
The field of nature-inspired innovation holds immense potential for driving sustainable innovation and solving complex challenges facing society. By learning from and emulating nature's time-tested strategies, we can develop technologies and designs that are more efficient, resilient, and environmentally friendly. However, the successful translation of biological insights into practical solutions relies heavily on the availability and effective use of appropriate tools and frameworks.
As we have seen, a wide range of biomimetic tools have been developed to support various stages of the biomimetic process, from problem analysis and biological inspiration to solution generation and implementation. These tools play a critical role in bridging the gaps between biology and engineering, facilitating interdisciplinary communication, and guiding practitioners through the complex journey of biomimetic innovation.
Despite the growing number of tools, their adoption in practice remains limited. This is due in part to the fragmentation of tool development across disciplines, the lack of awareness and accessibility, and the need for more robust validation and integration of existing tools. To fully realise the potential of biomimetics, it is crucial that we work towards increased implementation of these tools across disciplines.
This calls for a concerted effort to disseminate knowledge about available tools, provide training and education to practitioners, and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. By integrating tools and frameworks, such as our NII framework and top-down/bottom-up approaches, we can create a more comprehensive and effective methodology for biomimetic problem-solving.
Moreover, by leveraging insights from theoretical and practical analyses of the tool landscape, we can guide future tool development to address identified gaps and opportunities. This includes creating tools that better support the later stages of the biomimetic process, integrating advanced technologies like AI and machine learning, and developing more user-friendly and accessible interfaces.
Ultimately, the advancement of biomimetics will require a sustained commitment to research, education, and collaboration across disciplines. By investing in the development, analysis, and deployment of cutting-edge tools and frameworks, we can accelerate the translation of nature's wisdom into transformative solutions for a more sustainable and resilient future.
The path ahead is filled with challenges, but also with incredible opportunities. By learning from the ingenuity of the natural world and harnessing the power of biomimetic tools and frameworks, we can unlock new frontiers of innovation and create a future in which human technology and natural systems coexist in harmony. It is a vision worth pursuing, and one that will require the collective efforts of researchers, practitioners, and educators across the globe.
As we stand at the threshold of a new era of biomimetic innovation, let us embrace the tools and knowledge at our disposal, and work together to build a world that is inspired by nature, and in turn, inspires us all. The potential is vast, and the time to act is now. Let us seize this moment, and chart a course towards a brighter, more responsible and sustainable future, one innovation at a time.
Hi, we're Biomimicry Innovation Lab. We partner with founders and leaders to transform ideas into reality, drawing inspiration from transformative solutions found in nature. Our approach? Harnessing the latest scientific research with innovative tools to deliver solutions to complex challenges.
Reach out for a virtual coffee to discuss ideas.
Further Reading:
Wanieck, K., Fayemi, P. E., Maranzana, N., Zollfrank, C., & Jacobs, S. (2017). Biomimetics and its tools. Bioinspired, Biomimetic and Nanobiomaterials, 6(2), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1680/jbibn.16.00010
Fayemi, P. E., Wanieck, K., Zollfrank, C., Maranzana, N., & Aoussat, A. (2017). Biomimetics: process, tools and practice. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 12(1), 011002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/12/1/011002
Vincent, J. F., Bogatyreva, O. A., Bogatyrev, N. R., Bowyer, A., & Pahl, A. K. (2006). Biomimetics: its practice and theory. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 3(9), 471-482. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0127
Helms, M., Vattam, S. S., & Goel, A. K. (2009). Biologically inspired design: process and products. Design Studies, 30(5), 606-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.04.003
Yen, J., Helms, M., Goel, A., Tovey, C., & Weissburg, M. (2014). Adaptive evolution of teaching practices in biologically inspired design. In Biologically Inspired Design (pp. 153-199). Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5248-4_7
Badarnah, L., & Kadri, U. (2015). A methodology for the generation of biomimetic design concepts. Architectural Science Review, 58(2), 120-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.922458
Nagel, J. K., & Stone, R. B. (2012). A computational approach to biologically inspired design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 26(2), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060412000054
Helms, M., & Goel, A. K. (2014). The Four-Box method: problem formulation and analogy evaluation in biologically inspired design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 136(11), 111106. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028172
ISO 18458:2015 Biomimetics — Terminology, concepts and methodology. (2015). International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/standard/62500.html
Goel, A. K., McAdams, D. A., & Stone, R. B. (Eds.). (2014). Biologically inspired design: Computational methods and tools. Springer.
Lepora, N. F., Verschure, P., & Prescott, T. J. (2013). The state of the art in biomimetics. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 8(1), 013001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3182/8/1/013001
Speck, T., & Speck, O. (2008). Process sequences in biomimetic research. Design and Nature IV, 114(3). https://doi.org/10.2495/DN080011
Bar-Cohen, Y. (Ed.). (2011). Biomimetics: nature-based innovation. CRC press.
Gebeshuber, I. C., Gruber, P., & Drack, M. (2009). A gaze into the crystal ball: biomimetics in the year 2059. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 223(12), 2899-2918. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544062JMES1563
Pawlyn, M. (2019). Biomimicry in architecture. 2nd Ed. Routledge.
Whitesides, G. M. (2015). Bioinspiration: something for everyone. Interface focus, 5(4), 20150031. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2015.0031
Wegst, U. G., Bai, H., Saiz, E., Tomsia, A. P., & Ritchie, R. O. (2015). Bioinspired structural materials. Nature materials, 14(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4089
Hwang, J., Jeong, Y., Park, J. M., Lee, K. H., Hong, J. W., & Choi, J. (2015). Biomimetics: forecasting the future of science, engineering, and medicine. International journal of nanomedicine, 10, 5701. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S83642
