From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Engineering (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconBiomimetics is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I'm doing some research on biomimicry to try and improve this article. I think that we should distinguish between the "term" (which was coined by Jane Benyus) and the "concept" which has been around as long as humans have been around. I think as others have proposed, we should include the term and concept of biomimetics since the root words and concepts are the same. I'm still looking for credible sources to verify how much these two terms overlap and if there are any significant differences (anyone know of any?). It appears that the Biomimicry Institute uses the word biomimetics somewhat interchangeably with biomimicry although I found no reference to Otto Schmitt (who coined the word biomimetics) in BI's website or affiliated websites (,, If anyone has thoughts about making a clear distinction between the "term" and "concept" of biomimicry and its relationship to biomimetics, I would love to discuss! Thanks,Flybmr (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks I like I was wrong in attributing the term "biomimicry" to Jane Benyus. A simple google scholar search on biomimicry will pull up articles in the early 90s with the term "biomimicry" being used already. From reading some of Professor Julian Vincent's articles on biomimetics, I would say that these two terms are basically synonymous. Jane Benyus book on biomimicry in 1997 created somewhat of a movement which emphasizes sustainability. However, the term biomimicry existed before her book and in itself does not necessarily carry that connotation. Flybmr (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me just tell you this before you go on off with your crazy merger things. The fundamental point of biomimicry is that as natural selection has been going on for billions of years organisms that are its products have not only evolved themselves but adapted to the environment. What is about to change now is the simplistic view of "things" existing in isolation and somehow magically interacting with each other while as we learn with physics is that they are constantly connected and tied to each other. Maybe you read this page and you make the creative association that this reminds you of "hippie bull****" and it makes you feel bad, but try to picture this: natural selection perfects energy efficient solutions, energy efficiency other than being a fundamental principle of pretty much everything it is also the one of the main principles in business.(Energy costs you know?) Now you can try to guess what will happen next.Arkos vahamaki (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


The introductory part of this article seems like a book advertising. Chmyr (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Couldn't agree more. Pure advertising.

Rewrite needed[edit]

existing economic systems do not reward efficiency as an absolute value, and they do seem to have to do with the difficulty of large scale cooperation.

The "reach" here is the assertion that Darwin is remembered mostly for ecological selection not sexual selection "because" of Victorian mores.

If someone wants to rewrite that, I won't object, but the idea that natural selection consists only of ecological selection has never been valid at all. Modern biologists are starting to believe that sexual selection matters more.

Copyedits needed[edit]

"Proponents argue that all natural life forms minimize and ecological niches remove failures."

This is not a sensible sentence. Could someone who knows what the intended meaning is please rewrite it?


2004/08/15: Can someone provide the source for "its later codification as a field of study to Lynn Margulis."? I have not found any reference that Lynn wrote on the subject of Biomimicry.

Not Lyn Margulis[edit]

See: Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature by Janine Benyus

also go to:

Seriously, Janine Benyus did not introduce this concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger[edit]

Biomimicry really should be a unique entry in Wikipedia.

As a current MBA candidate at Bainbridge Graduate Institute studying this important field in sustainability, I must argue against merging biomimicry with bionics. While I have not been able to cite all the current literary references to biomimicry a simple search on Amazon results in three (3) pages of books, music and other works citing the term.

Amazon Search Results of Biomimicry.

Biomimicry is clearly a major field of science in its own right and bionics is too easily confused with Prosthetic Enhancement, the bionic man and the bionic woman (inaccurate or unscholarly as that may be) it is human nature to think of bionics in this manner. If Wikipedia is meant to teach people about the true meaning of its encyclopedia entries, then it's important we keep biomimicry separate so they have a better opportunity to learn about this important emerging field.

Thank you for keeping this entry unique.

Toddrawlings (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, there is enough information specifically on engineering solutions to explicitly copy biological systems to justify a full article. Probably if this article is expanded to cover more general uses that will become self-evident. I also changed the section heading to not support any position on the topic of merging, in accordance with the Talk page guidelines.

Biomimicry is unique from bionics and bi-inspired design in that in addition to learning from nature for inspiration, we also learn from nature for ecological principles of sustainability.


I, too, think that biomimicry , although currently in its infancy, is going to be extremely important in the years and centuries to come. It is unique and should not be lumped together with bionics. This new paradigm in engineering, architecture, materials science, and agriculture is going to help usher in the New Industrial Revolution and has the potential to save our race from destroying the planet that we call home. Blueelectricstorm (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree it should be merged, maybe not with Bionics, as that term apparently has two different meaning, so it can be confusing, so I think it should be merged with Biomimetics. I really wonder why the term Biomimicry was created as it has the exact same etymological origin so it seems. It would be interesting to hear somebody explain why that was done other then for marketing purposes for the book and the consulting firm. Especially calling it a "new field in science" sounds a bit off to me, thinking about Gaudi, Da Vinci, Colani etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Merger: Suggested Reasons[edit]

At the outset I must suggest that Bionics should have a disambiguation page with bionics as referring to prosthesis etc. being separated from bionics as referring to biomimetics. Google bionics today and top results refer to the former despite it being a more recent usage of the word. As for biomimicry, my understanding is that it has a specific insistance of 'sustainabilty' over bionics (look at Janine M. Benyus/ website and other media). Bionic solution uses nature for inspiration not considering sustainability as a guiding light. e.g. Neural networks in Computers has no relation to sustainablity.

Oppose merger-other issues[edit]

Agree with other posters that the intro is unbalanced. Benyus deserves ample credit as one who has raised the issue in the public eye, but there are quite a number of other groups that have been active in making fundamental and systematic contributions overe the years. Julian Vincent, George Jeronimides, Steven Vogel come to mind, as well as the organizations Bionis and the EU Biofutures program. Additionally, the link to sustainability is not universally accepted. Although clearly important, and a major thread through Benyus' writing and work, quite a few people use biomimetics for innovative engineering design. Indeed-this is implicitly acknowledged in the current wiki via the reference to the bat cane. Innovative yes, geared to sustainability, no. The present wiki reflects one contributer's idea, not the consensus of the state of the field.

Second, I also oppose the merger. Bionics, although not strictly defined, is more associated with engineering interventions in the human body-such may or may not be biomimetic (if the defining property here is the use of a biological principle). Again, it is not an issue with regard to an emphasis on sustainability or sustainability as an enpoint, as has been suggested.

Mjweiss (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Where the hell is actual biomimicry?[edit]

You know, when harmless insects look like poisonous ones? You know, where the term was actually first put into place, before it was co-opted. You know, science? Elijahmeeks (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Elijahmeeks, you might want to look at Mimicry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Bionics into Biomimicry[edit]

From what I understand, after having read the talk pages of both articles as well as other pages on the internet, "biomimicry" and "biomimetics' are the proper scientific terms for most of the stuff on the "bionics" page, so I suggest we merge most of the material in Bionics into this article and leave the term "bionics" to the few areas where it's actually properly used (beside the Hollywood usage). From previous discussions on this page there seem to have been a proposed merger the other way around a couple of years ago, but it obviously didn't happen, for understandable reasons, as "bionics" is regarded an unscientific term. Perhaps it's time to merge the proper way? Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a side-by-side comparison of the terms. "Bionic" is defined as something " having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices," according to Webster's. But "biomimicry" seems to refer more to the design and engineering phase, as opposed to the finished product. They're almost like the two sides of a coin. Biomimicry is a design concept sometimes used to create bionic devices. It might confuse people to see the terms made synonymous. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I too would really like a side-by-side comparison of the term. It could very well end up as "biomimetics is really bionics with a new name (reason: Hollywood corrupted the word to the extent where a bionicist cannot be taken seriously anymore")". As long as it is clear, it is fine with me.--
David Latapie ( | @) — www 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be quite simple; we are transferring the idea from biology to technology; transferring the movements and functions of body parts - biology to mimicking the movements and functions of body parts - technology. I realize that I am making this simpler than the scholars of late would like, but there you have it.--
User:Mr. Michael Greer (User_talk:Mr. Michael Greer) 22:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

PING> If the two pages do not get merged, they should at least be removed as alternate forms in each other's ledes. At the moment, the ledes of BOTH articles make it seem the terms are analogous; however, they remain separate pages. The bolded alternates should be linked to each other, at least. —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 06:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

New Example[edit]

I've tried several times to add an excellent example from the display field, a field from which one example, Mark Miles use of the etalon, was already in place:

Another display technology to use biomimicry is the PenTile Matrix family of subpixel layouts that were inspired by the human retina and its sophisticated neural processing to enable higher resolution displays with fewer subpixels per pixel. The human retina has nearly equal numbers of L and M Cones (which roughly respond to red and green colors respectively) while there are very few S Cones (which roughly respond to blue colors). These novel layouts use fewer blue subpixels and sometimes fewer red subpixels as well. The subpixel rendering algorithms use the very same center vs. surround fields as early vision processing in the retina to allow higher definition appearance.

Mr.Ollie keeps deleting it, unnecessarily... and I believe, incorrectly, stating that he believed that it was not "mimicking" the retina, only "corresponding" to it. This would seem to be pedantic at best. Especially since the article itself quotes a source that says, "Biomimicry is defined in her book as a "new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems." "

"takes inspiration from" would negate Mr.Ollie's objection to inclusion of this example, even if the pedantry was correct regarding being only in "correspondence to" rather than strictly mimetic, which I dispute. DisplayGeek (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that a rather large portion of your edits are related to Pentile pixel layouts. Are you associated with this technology in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Biomimicry in every profession[edit]

Biomimetics or biomimcry (I believe they are the same) is growing in every profession. The word is recently coined in architecture as biomimetic architecture ( I believe it's different from bionics because it's changing how we are looking to everything. this word will be the new area we will search our science in. I believe Vincent is the first one who coined this word as his articles show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messmanreturns (talkcontribs) 08:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure Biomimicry is same like Bionics?[edit]

Biomimicry ≠×≠ Bionics

biomimicry, biomimetics, bio-inspiration, bionics, biognosis, and close to bionical creativity engineering

At Simple Ennglish Wikipedia are not any of them.

-- (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of poking around in the literature shows they're generally synonymous. Mokele (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What about Mimicry ?
I saw only term "Biomimethics" in literature and TV-documents so far.

Similar terms

  • Mimetic is an adjective used to describe cases of mimicry, but is also used in mathematics (see mimetic). This should not be confused with memetics, the scientific study of memes.
  • Mimesis also refers to imitation, especially relating to the arts.
-- (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
-- (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


A camera seems an obvious example of biomimicry. OK, so the camera as we know it now has come a long way, but I have trouble believing that our own eyes weren't a major contributor to the basic design. Unless it wasn't until the 20th century that anybody studied eyes to see how they work, in which case the level of similarity is an interesting coincidence. Anyway, can anyone here confirm or refute the camera's eligibility for inclusion among the examples here? — Smjg (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If Bionics is merged with Biomimicry[edit] will make Wikipedia look ridiculous. They are not the same, and any sort of research on the history of how they are applied would show that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment – the articles should explain what sets the two fields apart, with source citations. Likewise, if the two fields are one and the same, provide the sources that prove this. Please don't merge them until proof that they are the same field is provided. Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Biomimicry or biomimetics[edit]

I think a more linguistic approach should be adopted as to the question whether the right term is "biomimicry" or "biomimetics". Both "mimicry" and "mimetics" stem from the Greek word "mimesis", meaning imitation. Now "mimicry" (which is basically the English adaptation of the Greek term) in biological science already had taken the specific meaning of "the similarity of one species to another which protects one or both" ( "Simple" imitation of nature (without being concerned too much with the consequences for the environment, maybe?) would be "biomimetics", whereas "biomimicry", as I conceive it now, is also concerned with this aspect of protection, of "blending into nature" and making the human society eternally recyclable without damaging nature, so to speak). Correct me if I'm wrong (needless to say).

O yes, and "bionics" is, in my view, in fact a blending of an organism and technology, prothesis, pacemakers, you name it. We know it from scifi, of course, but science in that respect is starting to catch up with scifi.

Please elaborate on this new turn I try to give to the discussion

--Joekiedoe (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect direction merge[edit]

The merge between Biomimetics and Biomimicry is in the incorrect direction with the primary name being Biomimetics and not Biomimicry. The comparative size of the articles and the fact that Biomimicry was written first on Wikipedia is not a suitable criteria for the direction of the merge since the term Biomimetics takes precedence both historically and in it's level of use internationally in the scientific community. The field had a well established name with university departments created prior to the promotion of the more recent term Biomimicry. Biomimetics also specifically concerns innovation of ideas from nature for technological and scientific progress whereas Biomimicry is concerned with the same thing but with it's use in social and environmental sustainability. Although they both fall under a common banner the term Biomimetics (again) has historical precedence and widespread adoption by almost 30 years SylvanD (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If there aren't any reasonable objections I will go ahead and fix this merge SylvanD (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You were specifically instructed not to do this. We do not do cut and paste moves, and you have failed to move the primary page history. I am now reversing your changes and requesting a page move per the proper process. The stub was correctly redirected to the primary topic which would allow for a complete page history move. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Biomimicry?[edit]

If Biomimetics is generally agreed to be a synonym of Biomimicry, shouldn't we merge the articles? Redirects will take care of any searches on either title (indeed, on any of the various titles for this concept), so we won't lose anything, but would gain in clarity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Where are the source citations? What do the experts in these fields say? Are there separate academic fields with their own university departments and journals? (Again, provide source citations). Start with the references, and act from there. Please don't merge until sufficient proof is presented in the form of facts backed by citations of reliable sources. Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Biomimicry was the first article on the subject created and has the most complete coverage of this topic. This stub was created after biomimicry as an unintentional duplicate fork of the same topic. It remained a stub for 10 years without any expansion, with much of the content consisting solely of external links and quotes. For these reasons, I've redirected the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This merge is at the least in the incorrect direction. The size of the article and the fact that it was written first on wikipedia is irrelevant since the term Biomimetics takes precedence both historically and in it's level of use internationally in the scientific community. The field had a well established name with university departments created prior to the promotion of the more recent term Biomimicry. Biomimetics also specifically concerns innovation of ideas from nature for technological and scientific progress whereas Biomimicry is concerned with the same thing but with it's use in social and environmental sustainability. Although they both fall under a common banner the term Biomimetics (again) has historical precedence and widespread adoption by almost 30 years. SylvanD (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Links moved to Talk section[edit]

…because there relationships to the title subject are unclear, and so near to practically useless to readers (and so they are not easily reviewable by editors). Please, if interested in having these appear, check the link, and add them back with a parenthetical expression making very clear the actual relationship to the title concept. E.g., though the Benz model has a parenthetic expression, its perceived relationship to the title subject us not clear (and I am one relatively familiar both with the car and the article).

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the common factor in all of these is a certain amount of unsubstantiable (hence, uncited) greenwash, which makes use of the sales value of the term "natural" to imply unstated benefits from the vague imitation of some aspect of nature. The Water Cube, for instance, makes use of a sort of foam bubble structure which is not unlike certain kinds of pith or parenchyma. Whether that qualifies as biomimetic would require PhD-level quantities of further research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

BiomimicryBiomimetics – Cleaning up after a bad copy and paste merge that failed to move the correct, primary page history. Target was a duplicate stub created two years after the primary topic. It remained a stub from 2004-2013 while this topic (Biomimicry) was the primary topic. Recently, an editor decided to copy this material from here to biomimetics instead of requesting a proper move. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So, just throwing this out for consideration: the top journal for this specific area is titled "Bioinspiration and Biomimetics" ( I've heard "biomimicry" used as synonymous to both. However, I'm only associated with the field via collaborators, so take that with a grain of salt. HCA (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
@HCA:, it sounds like you are supporting this move request. Please make that support explicit. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, put me down as Support. HCA (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This topic appears to be a serious accidental fork with mimicry. If this article is supposed to be about technological design inspired by natural designs, then it is very ambiguous a title, and I'm not sure that the proposed rename does enough to fix that. I think it needs a more descriptive title. I also think it there is a lot of WP:NOR ingrained in it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I have commented earlier in talk about this but I'll just mention it again for completeness. Biomimetics is a scientific field that has been in existence for some time, there are a number of labs and departments in universities around the world that are either wholly or partially dedicated to it's study and application. Most of the people in the field worldwide use the term biomimetics to describe it rather than biomimicry, although the terms are widely considered synonymous biomimetics is far more common and also technically correct since it also has historical precedence by about 30 years. The majority of literature also uses the term biomimetics and most of the links on this article page link to resources and departments named biomimetics. Also as pointed out above biomimicry is sufficiently like mimicry as to be confusing as an article title and there are also other articles that use biomimetic as part of their description already.SylvanD (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@SylvanD: you need to explicitly say Support, which is what you intended. I'm not at all sure what SmokeyJoe is talking about as the article on mimicry has nothing to do with biomimetics. It's very possible that SmokeyJoe briefly glanced at this move request and left a passing comment, but considering the evidence, I think it is safe to say that his comment should be completely disregarded as it is entirely erroneous In other words, biomimetics is not a fork of mimicry, accidental or not, nor is it ambiguous. Further it does not have any original research. Finally, the term "biomimetics" is the correct descriptive title, and a cursory search of Google Scholar, Google Books, and university websites will show this to be true. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas:Thanks Viriditas I've corrected the note above to show support.
  • Support. OK, yes, it is quite different to mimicry. But yes, the current title is ambiguous with mimicry, and then when I scanned the article I saw what seemed to be a weird extrapolation of mimicry. Yes, actually reading the article helped, but renaming to "Biomimetics" makes it sound like what it is. As an aside, I do maintain that it has a small WP:NOR issue, with excessive treatment of examples, citing primary sources, with little secondary source material on the general topic. But this is no great problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support. My oppose is based on the trends shown for these terms on Ngram Viewer. This supports SylvanD contention that the term biomimetics had historical precedence by about 30 years. But a cross-over occurred about 10 years ago and biomimicry now appears as the preferred term. Indeed the trend continues to accelerate decisively in favour of biomimicry. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Changed to support per my omission to look at the adjective --Epipelagic (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

--Gary Henscheid (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Gary Henscheid== Proposal to add "Reverse engineering" to "See also" list ==

Reverse engineering is defined by Eilan, Eldad (2005) on Wikipedia (original source below) this way: "Reverse engineering, also called back engineering, is the processes of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made and re-producing it or re-producing anything based on the extracted information.[1]:3

Eilam, Eldad (2005). Reversing: secrets of reverse engineering. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-7645-7481-8.

Reverse engineering is distinct from biomimicry only in that reverse engineering attempts to analyze and re-produce man made things and biomimicry attempts to do the same with living things. Someone researching one of the subjects would very likely also be interested in researching into the other, so I propose including "Reverse engineering" under "See also". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Henscheid (talkcontribs) 11:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Biomimetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

New quality assessment[edit]

The article was greatly improved today. I think I will improve the quality scale during the next days, after an accurate revision.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Mikeblas what do you think? Do you have any sugeestions for the newbies?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"Improved" carries a touch of hubris with it, a risky word. The other risky word is "application", which implies applying something in practice, i.e. commercially. That is a big claim, and far too much for many (most?) instances where, often, all that has happened is that a research project has demonstrated the theoretical possibility of something biomimetic. It would be far preferable to talk about "technologies" when a technological mechanism or material has been developed, and "applications" when a technology has actually been applied. In the "unimproved" version of the article, up until yesterday, this distinction was maintained. I'd strongly suggest we put back that structure, i.e. fold the new materials into it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear User:Chiswick Chap I thank you for your comments and feedback on our work. From our perspective, "application" does not necessary carry the same meaning as "commercial application". There are plethora of scientific articles available online that use the word "application" to highlight that the research or "technology" is "applied" to some extent and could eventually be transfered into the real world as a "commercial product/application". We think that "application" is a neutral word in that sense. Previously, the section only had two sub-sections, called "prototypes" and "technologies", where the content included work of researchers that are obviously not commercially available yet. Also some commercial products were already included in both sub-sections without distinction. Furthermore, we have expanded the content quite significantly in addition to sorting and classifying the content. Your comments are appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yapadaryko (talkcontribs) 14:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, it was improved. That comment even strecthing the definition of overconfidence, lacks the aspect of foolish pride. It could be too much optimistic, but nothing more than that. I am just happy for them and wiki, and I did not do the job... the core trigger of hybris is af far as I know centered on the ego of the protagonist. Is this the main problem you have found? If so, that means the article is probably improved because it is enlarged with minimal or at least much better defined problems, as far as I can summarize so far. I will keep reading especially in the week end.
Coming back to the title of the paragraph, I kinda agree with the Ph.D. students here. you said in the object that with respect, they'll be applications if and only if they are *applied* commercially. Maybe I am not a native English speaker, but it's the first time I see the word "application" linked to a commercial use. Do you have a dictionary definition? I am quite intigued by this concept. here you can see that is used in a generic way i.e. a way in which something can be used for a particular purpose. There are technologies that are applied but not all technologies are commercial. Some very sophisticated processes are applied only in laboratories but they're called applications in any case. Many advanced or specialist research lines might require applications of technologies that are never made commerically available. Even in the example of the dictionary the application of this research in the treatment of cancer cannot be considered commercial strictu sensu. it might be an inevitable consequences in some of our current economical models, but not in our language.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)