Henning 1
Madonna Henning
Professor Eylicio
ENGL 115
18 Nov 2023
Annotated Bibliography
Biewener, Andrew A. “Biomechanics of Avian Flight.” Current Biology, vol. 32, no. 20,
2022, pp. R1110–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.079.
This article discusses the use of biomimetics in avian flight as well as its history
and contributors.. It features the Wright brothers and their invention of the flying
machine, as well as Leonardo Da Vinci, who the Wright brothers drew inspiration
from. The resource is from a peer reviewed journal. It was published only recently
in 2022. The article also lists other sources, and the author, Biewener, has written
other works that have also been reviewed. I found the source through CSUN’s
One Search database as well, which tends to hold reputable information for the
most part. Therefore, I believe this source is credible and correct in its knowledge.
This source applies to the history portion of my topic. It provides information on
one specific example of the use of biomimetic research throughout history that I
use. This source shows up mostly in the introduction and discussion portions of
my paper. It supports my thesis by reinforcing the idea of successful biomimetic
concepts.
Rossin, K. J. “Biomimicry: Nature’s Design Process versus the Designer’s Process.”
Design & Nature V : Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, vol. 138, WIT,
2010, pp. 559–70, https://doi.org/10.2495/DN100501.
Henning 2
In this article, a design process is introduced. It is called the Biomimicry
Institute’s, The Challenge to Biology Design Spiral designed by Carl Hastrich.
Hastrich created the design spiral for the Biomimicry Institute as a, “common
sense approach to guide designers and other innovators through nature’s
reiterative design process” (Rossin, 2010, p. 561). It consists of five phases:
distill, translate, discover, emulate, evaluate, and identify. I use these five phrases
to give readers a more specific idea of what goes into using biomimetics in a
design context. The process itself is broad and doesn’t apply to just one area, like
architecture. Because of this, it provides a good starting point for the reader to
begin to understand. The article I use is one that I gathered through the CSUN
One Search database, so that is a decent indicator of its credibility. Furthermore,
it’s also been peer reviewed. I also looked up the chart itself that the paper talks
about, and the information presented by other sources seemed to align with the
information presented in the paper. The guide chart that the paper compares and
discusses is a well known process among those who utilize biomimetic practices.
Benyus, Janine. “Biomimicry In Action.” TED, July 2009,
https://www.ted.com/talks/janine_benyus_biomimicry_in_action
In this video, Benyus discusses Biomimicry as a concept. She reminds the
audience of its significance and explains how it relates to nature and biological
aspects. She talks about how biomimicry is a natural part of human existence, and
how we often draw inspiration from nature without even thinking about it. She
gives examples such as shark inspired swimsuits and bullet train designs as
successful innovations of biomimetics. I’ve concluded that the speaker of this
Henning 3
TED talk is a reliable source because she has an extensive history in the field with
multiple published books as well as peer reviewed articles and journals. Looking
into Benyus and her involvement in the field has led me to believe that the
scientist is a reputable speaker. The speech that I am sourcing was also hosted by
the TED organization. Their policy is as stated, “At TED, we strive to present
science in a way that is both compelling and 100% credible. Scientific claims by
our speakers should be based on data that has survived scrutiny by experts in the
field. Speakers should be transparent about the basis for any factual claims, and
the scientific evidence for them.” This allows me to have reasonable belief that
Benyus’ speech was run through some measure of a vetting process.
Kamila. (n.d.). The limitations of Biomimetic Architecture. The Limitations of Biomimetic
Architecture.
https://scalar.usc.edu/works/the-limitations-of-biomimetic-architecture/index#:~:text=Just%20li
ke%20a%20failing%20ecosystem,man%2Dmade%20imitation%20of%20nature
In this article, Buraczynski discusses the integration of biomimicry into the
discipline of architecture. She claims that while the attempt to apply biomimicry
to disciplines such as chemistry, medicine, engineering, and computational
systems might be appropriate, there are more limitations to consider when
applying biomimicry specifically to architecture. She argues that most successful
biomimetic products such as bacteria repellant inspired by sharks operates on an
individual scale, and that very few examples are directly related to architecture.
Her main argument is that human error must be taken into account with
biomimicry, especially since if one piece of a system incorporated into an
Henning 4
architectural structure is unbalanced, the whole larger system could fall apart. I
don’t intend to directly use this source in my paper. However, it did provide some
helpful insight into some of the possible cons to keep in mind about biomimicry
applied to other areas, in general. Such as the importance of biomimetic
procedures and tools being thoroughly tested and contained before being
distributed.
Ng, Jian Yao, et al. “Biomimicry of Microbial Polysaccharide Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering
and Regenerative Medicine – A Review.” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 241, 2020, pp.
116345–116345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116345.
In this journal volume Ng, et al. Review the most relevant strategies and impacts
of the biomimicry the native ECM toward their use as biomaterial scaffolds for
3D micro environment tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. More
specifically as hydrogels forming natural polysaccharides. The article was written
and peer reviewed by reputable persons, and the paper provides all the study data
mentioned as well as citing any references that have been used. The article is
credible, extensive in its review, and does cover the integration of biomimicry into
a specific area of medicine. Although a conclusive product has not yet been
produced from research into this area, it is beyond speculative at this point, with
promising prospects for the future of tissue engineering in medicine. The article’s
subject proposes a good idea of the sort of biomimetic research that is happening
in the world today, as well as a bit of the view of the thought process going into it.
I may integrate this source into my paper.
Henning 5
Zhang, Muwei, et al. “Biomimicry in Metal–Organic Materials.” Coordination Chemistry
Reviews, vol. 293–294, 2015, pp. 327–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2014.05.031.
This article discusses metal-organic materials (MOMs) in a comprehensive
review. The research of biomimetic MOMs is currently underdeveloped in
comparison to some of its related subjects, MOF/MOP chemistry. The article’s
main concern is how the incorporation of biological components into MOMs
could “enrich their structural and functional diversity.” With a focus on
overviewing different methods for rational design of MOMs with biomimetic
features. The paper is extensively reviewed by others and appears to be a credible
source. It has multiple authors that, when I look them up, also take part in other
papers. I also found the source through CSUN’s OneSearch database, so I believe
it is reasonably reliable. However, there is little of its content that directly
discusses biomimetics as a whole. I believe that the subject matter is too narrow
for me to incorporate into my paper, and so I won’t be using it this time around.
Ilieva, Lazaara, et al. “Biomimicry as a Sustainable Design Methodology— Introducing the
‘Biomimicry for Sustainability’ Framework.” Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 7, no. 2,
2022, pp. 37-, https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020037.
In this article, Ilieva, et al. cover a theoretical overview of biomimicry literature,
attempting to hold a reflective discussion regarding the nuanced relationship
between biomimetic design principles and its promise of sustainable outcomes.
They discuss biomimetics as it relates to the fields of architecture, philosophy, and
design as well. However, their sections concerning and involving sustainability
are the ones I reference the most in this source. The objective of the paper is
Henning 6
stated as, “…a point of departure for more active and deeper discussions
regarding future biomimetic practice in the context of sustainability and
transformational change, particularly within the built environment.” Because of
this, I believe the contents of the article are comprehensive enough to support my
thesis, while being simple enough for me to achieve my goal of my paper being
digestible for an uninformed audience. This is a credible source, I found it
through CSUN’s OneSearch database, and the article is peer reviewed and posted
on the National Library of Medicine site.
Perricone, V., Santulli, C., Rendina, F., & Langella, C. (2021). Organismal Design and
Biomimetics: A problem of scale. Biomimetics, 6(4), 56.
https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics6040056
In this article, Perricone, Santulli, Rendina, and Langella provide an overview
regarding scale-related principles in organismal design and their application to
technical projects regarding mechanics, optics, electricity, and acoustics. In the
article they state that the transfer of principles from small scale in organismal
structures to a macroscopic scale is often seen, however not always possible. This
is due to biological structures losing their functionality when applied to different
scaling dimensions. What they describe and discuss is one of the main challenges
designers who incorporate biomimetic principles must be aware of and overcome.
I believe that presenting this challenge up front to my audience will assure them
that I have done my research on the topic and am aware of the shortcomings of
biomimetics, as well as let them become aware of it themselves. This is valuable
for my paper so I do intend to reference this source and the points addressed in
Henning 7
my literature review. Since this article is part of a journal published and reviewed
by figures with links to accredited universities, as well as being located through
CSUN’s OneSearch database, I can reasonably conclude that it is credible.
Jacob’s, Shoshanah, et al. “The Education Pipeline of Biomimetics and ITs Challenges.”
Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 7, no. 3, 2022, pp.
93-,https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7030093
Workers across various fields are seeking to incorporate biomimetic processes
into their work. The main problem with this is that there is no one understanding
or guide for how to do so, or comprehensive review of what goes into it. This
article identifies that issue, stating “Only if what is needed to go from knowledge
to action is clearly understood can biomimetics take deeper root in design and
problem solving to address our 21st-century challenges.” McGarr et al. brainstorm
ways to combat the problem from a K-12 level, seeking to identify what areas and
subjects are necessary to teach in order to properly introduce biomimicry and
better prepare future designers, engineers, architects, academists, etc. to use
biomimetic principles. This source is from a credible journal and it was published
recently with up-to-date information, provided by authors with a good standing in
their respective fields. Therefore I believe that this source is reliable. I may
incorporate some of the article’s points and support into my essay since it
acknowledges another challenge of biomimetics, and provides an informed
proposed solution.
McLean, Neil, and Linda Price. “A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Reflective Coursework
Henning 8
This article written by McLean, et al. Covers one of the challenges of biomimetics
past research: marketing barriers. They discuss aquaporins specifically, but the
same struggles can be and have been applied to other biomimetic discoveries as
well. The marketing issues, they describe, include customer related barriers,
which can be influenced to some extent, and market technical related barriers,
which are more difficult to overcome. The challenges can be particularly difficult
to overcome if the organization and or the technology are still in their early stages.
The paper also discusses possible business models for introducing new
technologies in general, which would be helpful to speak about briefly in my
paper to show that this challenge doesn’t come without ways to combat it. This
article presents a good, quality counter argument or possible con that someone
might leverage against my claim. By using it correctly I can make my paper stand
stronger. I believe that this source is credible, -as it is published in an accredited
journal and written by authors with experience in the subject matter at hand.