Page 356 - Biomimetics : Biologically Inspired Technologies

Bar-Cohen : Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies DK3163_c013 Final Proof page 342 21.9.2005 11:51pm

342 Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies

13.10 Riot Control Agent........................................................................................................................... 358
13.10.1 Chemical Mace ............................................................................................................... 358
13.11 Operational ....................................................................................................................................... 359
13.11.1 Long-Term Disablement................................................................................................. 359
13.11.2 Passive Deterrents ........................................................................................................... 359
13.12 Physiological .................................................................................................................................... 359
13.12.1 Neurochemical ................................................................................................................ 359
13.12.2 Diversion ......................................................................................................................... 360
13.13 Surveillance...................................................................................................................................... 360
13.13.1 Electrosensing ................................................................................................................. 360
13.14 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 361
References....................................................................................................................................................... 361

13.1 INTRODUCTION

Whilst there are several proposed uses of biomimetics in defense or attack (martial, general law
enforcement) systems, at present they seem to be mostly development of novel materials (occa-
sionally novel mechanisms) in an established context. Examples are armor, personal or otherwise,
made of analogs of silk, mother-of-pearl (nacre), or wood. I do not intend to rehearse this topic
further. Camouflage is another area that has been examined, especially adaptive camouflage, but
since there is still much to be learned about camouflage techniques in nature (which I take to
include mimicry — camouflage is ‘deception’), I have included it. In general, camouflage and
armor are inimical; the tendency is for the more primitive ( ¼ evolutionarily older) animals of any
particular phylum to be well armored but slow and relatively easily seen, whereas the more highly
evolved ones are less well armored, or have no armor at all, but are fast-moving, or very well
camouflaged, or both. Thus they rely on speed and behavioral adaptiveness and subtlety for their
safety. The inevitable conclusion is that nature often employs guerrilla techniques rather than what
we think of as ‘‘conventional’’ ones. This may be related to the perceived financial investment. In
human warfare, an infantryman is seen as more expendable than the combination of a pilot and
aircraft. Indeed a significant reason for having a pilot is as a hostage to the aircraft’s expensive
technology, so that it is brought back in one piece from a sortie.
The preparation of a chapter like this is especially difficult since I could not think of a suitable
narrative to cover all the possibilities that exist in nature. Also, I have little understanding of the
techniques that are available to, or desired by, the military and police (the obvious users of defense
mechanisms). I decided, therefore, to adopt a classificatory approach, and to use an existing military
classification as my template (Alexander et al., 1996). I have removed the obviously nonbiological
techniques that involve explosives, lasers, etc., have retained others which, although biology does
not present us with the same resource, are obvious functional analogs, and have included some that
seemed to be missing from Alexander’s list but are present in biology. These latter are presented
without citations.
Man has many martial devices that have their reflections in nature, but the similarities have
either not been recognized or have not been developed. And since the outcome in nature is, mostly
for all parties, in an intraspecific encounter to live to fight another day (or at least live), perhaps we
have still much to learn. As for the rest, I suspect we have an untapped resource for biomimicry;
I have mostly left the extrapolation from biology to technology to the reader, otherwise this chapter
would have been too long. But most of the examples quoted either have a technological counterpart
or could be realized without much difficulty.
The Department of Defense defines (non-lethal) weapons as designed and deployed so as to
incapacitate people or their weapons and other equipment, rather than destroying them; also to