Broadening the Taxonomic Breadth of Organisms in the Bio-Inspired Design Process

Abstract

(1) Generating a range of biological analogies is a key part of the bio-inspired design process. In this research, we drew on the creativity literature to test methods for increasing the diversity of these ideas. We considered the role of the problem type, the role of individual expertise (versus learning from others), and the effect of two interventions designed to increase creativity—going outside and exploring different evolutionary and ecological “idea spaces” using online tools. (2) We tested these ideas with problem-based brainstorming assignments from a 180-person online course in animal behavior. (3) Student brainstorming was generally drawn to mammals, and the breadth of ideas was affected more by the assigned problem than by practice over time. Individual biological expertise had a small but significant effect on the taxonomic breadth of ideas, but interactions with team members did not. When students were directed to consider other ecosystems and branches of the tree of life, they increased the taxonomic diversity of biological models. In contrast, going outside resulted in a significant decrease in the diversity of ideas. (4) We offer a range of recommendations to increase the breadth of biological models generated in the bio-inspired design process.

Full text

Citation: Hund, A.K.; Stretch, E.;
Smirnoff, D.; Roehrig, G.H.;
Snell-Rood, E.C. Broadening the
Taxonomic Breadth of Organisms in
the Bio-Inspired Design Process.
Biomimetics 2023,8, 48. https://
doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010048
Academic Editors: Shoshanah
R. Jacobs and Kristina Wanieck
Received: 30 November 2022
Revised: 10 January 2023
Accepted: 17 January 2023
Published: 23 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
biomimetics
Article
Broadening the Taxonomic Breadth of Organisms in the
Bio-Inspired Design Process
Amanda K. Hund 1,2, Elizabeth Stretch 3, Dimitri Smirnoff 3, Gillian H. Roehrig 3and Emilie C. Snell-Rood 1,*
1Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN 55108, USA
2Department of Biology, Carleton College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA
3Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN 55455, USA
*Correspondence: emilies@umn.edu
Abstract:
(1) Generating a range of biological analogies is a key part of the bio-inspired design process.
In this research, we drew on the creativity literature to test methods for increasing the diversity of
these ideas. We considered the role of the problem type, the role of individual expertise (versus
learning from others), and the effect of two interventions designed to increase creativity—going
outside and exploring different evolutionary and ecological “idea spaces” using online tools. (2) We
tested these ideas with problem-based brainstorming assignments from a 180-person online course in
animal behavior. (3) Student brainstorming was generally drawn to mammals, and the breadth of
ideas was affected more by the assigned problem than by practice over time. Individual biological
expertise had a small but significant effect on the taxonomic breadth of ideas, but interactions with
team members did not. When students were directed to consider other ecosystems and branches of
the tree of life, they increased the taxonomic diversity of biological models. In contrast, going outside
resulted in a significant decrease in the diversity of ideas. (4) We offer a range of recommendations to
increase the breadth of biological models generated in the bio-inspired design process.
Keywords: divergent thinking; biological models; brainstorming; problem-based learning
1. Introduction
Looking to biological adaptations can be a powerful method to inspire novel solu-
tions to a range of challenges [
1
–
4
]. For instance, the structure of butterfly wings has
provided new methods for reducing glare on screens [
5
,
6
], and studies of gecko feet have
inspired the development of novel robotic graspers and reversible adhesives [
7
,
8
]. However,
biomimetic research tends to represent the tip of the iceberg of biological diversity
[9–12]
.
The species that are often the focus of bio-inspiration (e.g., geckos, butterflies) are over-
represented in biomimetic research as “biological models” relative to their taxonomic
representation
[12,13]
. While these species have unique traits that have inspired a number
of applications, adaptations in less frequently considered species can be just as valuable
in bio-inspired applications, such as steerable needles based on parasitoid wasp ovipos-
itors [
14
]. Even within taxonomic groups, there tends to be domination by particular
biological model species. For instance, the blue morpho butterfly is more commonly stud-
ied for structural color applications (e.g., [
15
,
16
]) than other butterfly species with different
mechanisms of manipulating light reflection [
17
,
18
]. The taxonomically restricted search
space of biomimetics is not inherently a bad thing: we need to focus in depth on particular
biological models to understand them enough to abstract design principles and translate
them to new technologies. However, we are not realizing the full potential of bio-inspired
design until we can more effectively search the entire tree of life for ideas during the initial
idea exploration stage [9].
Biomimetics 2023,8, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010048 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 2 of 18
In bio-inspired design, there is an incentive to increase the breadth of total ideas but
also the diversity of ideas with respect to evolutionary relatedness, such as that represented
by taxonomic diversity. A major limitation to copying biological traits is that natural
selection is constrained by available genetic variation and past evolutionary history [
19
,
20
],
which means that biology is often imperfect from a design perspective and that closely
related species will often have similar limitations [
21
,
22
]. However, engineers and designers
are not limited by the same processes and can mix and match mechanisms from different
biological models. Because the independent origins of a trait or function across species are
often underlain by different mechanisms (i.e., distantly related species often solve the same
problem in different ways), exploring a range of examples across different parts of the tree
of life means that a biodesigner is more likely to see different traits and mechanisms [
23
–
25
]
and come up with better solutions.
To search a broader range of biological models for inspiration, we might consider
interventions at the initial stages of the bio-inspired design process. In many ways, broad-
ening this idea-space is analogous to a creativity exercise, where we seek to brainstorm a
broader range of ideas, also termed “divergent thinking” [
26
,
27
]. Divergent thinking is one
of many factors that can lead to original, creative, and innovative ideas [
28
]. Several factors
may limit such divergent thinking in a biomimetic process. First, prior experience tends
to bias us toward biological models with which we are more familiar [
29
,
30
], as we often
have the knowledge of these organisms to make the analogy bridge between biology and
the focal problem. Databases such as AskNature can help those new to biology discover
different organisms [
31
,
32
], but studies have shown that this is still a narrower range than
that generated by biologists with more familiarity with biodiversity [
11
,
33
]. Tendencies
toward familiar organisms further restrict our idea generation, similar to other cognitive
biases (e.g., confirmation bias [
34
,
35
]). For instance, humans tend to be particularly drawn
to mammals and “charismatic megafauna” [
36
,
37
], which may limit biomimetic analogies
to large animals and mammals [
12
] more than other taxonomic groups, even when other
species are better models or present novel solutions to a problem.
The creativity literature offers several solutions for encouraging more divergent think-
ing during the bio-inspired design process. In this research, we focus on three general
ideas for increasing the breadth of biological ideas generated during the brainstorming
process. First, most people get better at creativity tasks with practice [
38
–
40
]. Giving
biomimetic researchers opportunities to develop divergent thinking skills related to bio-
logical analogies is likely important: practice generally improves performance and alters
neural structures [
41
,
42
]. Alternatively, it is possible that the focal problem, communicated
in a given brainstorming prompt, may override or obscure the effect of practice (the role of
prompt versus practice).
Second, we focus on the role of individual expertise versus that of collaborators or
team members (the role of
expertise
). The literature suggests that interactions in diverse
teams of collaborators can encourage divergent thinking [
43
]. In particular, diversity
with respect to knowledge and expertise can significantly improve team creativity [
44
–
46
].
With respect to biomimetics, we might expect the key piece of collaborator diversity to be
complementary expertise across different taxonomic groups. In other words, learning from
others with different biological expertise should broaden the range of ideas generated in
the bio-inspired design process. At the same time, an individual’s own expertise may be
just as important as what they are learning from their peers.
Third, we tested the efficacy of two interventions that we designed to increase the
range of ideas generated (the role of
interventions
). Research has suggested that time
outdoors in nature may improve creative thinking [
47
,
48
]. We might expect this to be
especially true with respect to ideas related to biological models. In a nature “wandering”
exercise, students may notice new biological models they had not thought of and relate
them to the problem at hand (the
outdoor
intervention). We also designed an intervention
to explicitly incorporate taxonomic diversity into brainstorming related to bio-inspired
design. We reasoned that the breadth of biological models generated would be even more

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 3 of 18
powerful if they were distantly related and thus more likely to use different mechanisms to
get at the same function. We developed a novel intervention, where students are somewhat
randomly pushed into different parts of the tree of life and different ecosystems across the
Earth (the idea-space intervention).
In this research, we used a classroom setting to test why people vary in their divergent
thinking during the bio-inspired design process. We used an Animal Behavior course
where the typical topics of such a course (e.g., sexual selection, cooperation, biomechanics,
habitat choice) were “flipped” through a bio-inspired lens (e.g., [
49
]). The course was fully
online during the COVID pandemic (spring 2021) and consisted of 180 students. For each
week, students were assigned a brainstorming problem, where they had to brainstorm a
range of biological models that would be ideal to study for inspiration in solving a given
problem (Table 1). This range of models was used as a starting point for the content of
the course: after discussing relevant basic research, the course returned to the problem
and considered what (if anything) these models might offer for ideas for problem solving.
We used a series of brainstorming activities to test three sets of ideas as to why divergent
thinking varies: (1) prompt versus practice, (2) individual versus team member expertise,
(3) the role of two interventions—going outside and using online tools to explore novel
parts of the tree of life. We predicted that each of these interventions would increase the
range of biological models generated during brainstorming with respect to both the total
number of ideas and the taxonomic diversity of ideas.
Table 1.
Focal problems. Background on how focal problem areas were discussed in class as context
for the brainstorming activities.
Problem Some of the Framing Used in the Course to Provide Context
Force
How do we build machines capable of generating extreme forces (e.g., to
use in demolition) that do not harm the user? (e.g., vibration syndrome)
Anxiety
How do we address anxiety within the mental health crisis? How do we
tamp down excess fear and chronic stress in modern life?
Grief How can we help people to process the loss of a loved one? How do we
move past grief that is holding us back from living?
Movement How do we ensure we get enough exercise? How do we encourage
ourselves to move around more?
Nutrition
How do we make healthy choices about what to eat? How do we pass on
those salty snacks or sweet desserts?
Communication
How do we promote clear, effective, and honest communication? How
do we ensure messages are understood in noisy and variable
environments?
Cooperation
How do we encourage cooperative and nice interactions between people?
How do we get people to cooperate with public health measures, safe
driving practices, and other initiatives for the public good?
2. Methods
2.1. Course Details
In this research, we studied the brainstorming exercises of 180 students enrolled
in a course on Animal Behavior. Students were primarily upper-level biology students,
including majors in Neuroscience (20%), Genetics/Cell Biology (13%), and General Biology
(44%). By credits, 86% of students were seniors, 13% were juniors, and the remainder
were sophomores or non-degree-seeking students. Most students in the course were on a
pre-health career track. During the spring semester of 2021, this class was online due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 4 of 18
2.2. Assignment Design
Students had brainstorming assignments due every week (on Thursday, for discussion
the following Monday). Prompts across weeks were similar in that students were assigned
a focal problem, which was often briefly discussed in class (Table 1), and then they were
asked to brainstorm a list of animal systems they would study for inspiration. For two of
the prompts, students could choose one of two options within a category (Mental Health:
“Grief” or “Anxiety”; Healthy Living: “Nutrition” or “Movement”). Additional portions of
the assignment varied by week depending on the interventions we were testing, and other
moving parts of the course (e.g., literature research or learning about manuscript writing
for this writing-intensive course). The complete texts of the assignments and the list of
assignments and instructions can be found in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2. In sum,
there were 11 pre-class brainstorming assignments, but students only had to complete 10
for 15% of their total grade. The first of these assignments (our baseline assignment) was
not due until the second Thursday of the course, so students had plenty of time to learn
about the assignment.
For our analyses, we chose a subset of assignments to analyze in part due to the
time cost of scoring 180 submissions for each assignment. We focused on assignments that
allowed us to test three sets of ideas as to why divergent thinking varies: (1) prompt versus
practice, (2) individual versus team member expertise, (3) the role of two
interventions—going
outside and using online tools to explore novel parts of the tree of life. We chose the first
brainstorming assignment (“force”) as a baseline. The final two assignments (“cooperation”
and “communication”) were the focus of the outdoor and the idea-space interventions (see
more details below). We chose two additional assignments partway through the course to
test the problem vs. practice and expertise hypotheses. The “mental health” assignment
was chosen, as it occurred about
1/3
of the way through the course, after many breakout
room discussions within student teams that varied in biological expertise (see below). The
“healthy choices” assignment was chosen at a later time point (about
2/3
of the way through
the course). Both “mental health” and “healthy choices” had two options for students
to choose from, allowing us to further test the influence of the prompt separately from
practice (time in the course). This collection of five assignments for 180 students (for a total
of 775 scored student responses from 178 unique students) allowed us to test the three focal
hypotheses, teasing apart the effects of prompt vs. practice, individual and team expertise,
and specific interventions (see below).
2.3. Prior Knowledge and Learning from Team Members
To test hypotheses about students’ prior knowledge of biodiversity and the taxonomic
expertise of team members, we gathered data before the course on their familiarity with
eleven taxonomic groups. Using a survey, we asked students to estimate their familiarity
with mammals, birds, reptiles/amphibians, fish, insects, arachnids and relatives, crus-
taceans, mollusks, “all the worms,” cnidarians, and sponges. For each taxonomic group,
students assessed their knowledge on a scale of 1 to 10, corresponding to “know little” to
“know lots!”, respectively. In total, 177 students filled out the survey in 2021, although given
that some of these dropped the course, in the end, we had 165 (of 180) students with data
on taxonomic expertise (distribution of responses in [
50
]). Two metrics were taken from the
biodiversity knowledge surveys: an individual’s “total expertise,” that is, a summary of
scored expertise across the eleven taxa, and a measure of their diversity of knowledge using
a commonly used measure of diversity from the ecology literature—the Shannon index
(Sum(pi(LNpi)) across all taxonomic groups), which adjusts for the evenness of knowledge
across taxonomic groups, with higher values representing more consistent knowledge
across taxonomic groups.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 5 of 18
To test the role of individual expertise versus what students were learning from their
peers, we compared the effects of their individual expertise versus that of team members
with whom they interacted after a brainstorming assignment (i.e., group interactions were
expected to affect individual brainstorming exercises later in the semester after multiple
assignment discussions). Student teams were constructed prior to the first day of the
course in a semi-systematic, semi-randomized way. Expertise was first sorted within each
taxonomic group, and then student teams were assigned (up to 30 total teams to distribute
“experts” in different taxonomic groups across student teams). Otherwise, sorting into
student teams was performed blind to student identity. We were sure to account for
variation across teams in students missing taxonomic score data (these individuals were
spread evenly across student teams 17–30). Our method of constructing teams seemed to
work well, as there were no significant differences in individual total expertise scores across
the 30 student teams (total expertise: F
29,136
= 0.47, p= 0.98), nor was there a difference in
Shannon diversity scores across student teams (F29,136 = 0.71, p= 0.86).
Student teams (breakout groups) were the same throughout the semester. Students
went into these teams at least once per class, sometimes 2–3 times in a class session (of
75 min). During the first breakout session on the first day of the course, students were
asked to complete a team norming exercise where they shared some information about their
backgrounds and worked out guidelines for interactions over Zoom. Other team activities
included sharing ideas from pre-class assignments, designing a composite “sensory robot”
(for a team prize), and completing statistical problems together.
In our analyses, we focused on an individual’s incoming expertise scores and how they
influenced their response to the first individual brainstorming assignment (“force”), which
came at the beginning of the course before team interactions. We were also interested in
whether students could learn from team members with different taxonomic expertise, which
was predicted to broaden the diversity of ideas when completing individual brainstorming
assignments later in the semester. To do this, we looked at an individual’s expertise scores
relative to their team members (student score minus the average of the other team mem-
bers) to see how this influenced responses on later assignments that occurred after team
interactions (“grief”, “anxiety”, “movement”, “nutrition”). Thus, positive values indicated
that an individual self-reported higher expertise than their team members, while negative
values indicated that an individual self-reported lower expertise than their team members.
2.4. Outdoor and Idea-Space Interventions
We designed two interventions and measured the impact on student responses. First,
in the idea-space intervention, we were interested in how the explicit consideration of
“evolutionary space” and “ecological space” would increase the taxonomic diversity of stu-
dent ideas (Supplementary Figure S1, Supplementary Table S3). Students were instructed
to think about how organisms across different branches of the tree of life evolved traits
to perform the same function. They could use various web tools to explore evolutionary
space, such as a website that takes the user to a random organism on the tree of life (tol.org)
or Wikipedia, by using the taxonomic classifications of different organisms. Students
were also encouraged to explore different biomes or geographic regions (phrasing listed
in Supplementary Table S3). In the outdoor intervention, students conducted a nature-
wandering activity, where they walked through an outdoor space and took notes on the
animals they saw that might be related to the focal problem for the week (“cooperation”
or “communication”). Students were split into two sets by their last name and completed
both interventions and topics in a factorial manner to control for the topic and order
(Supplementary Table S3).

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 6 of 18
2.5. Assessment of Divergent Thinking
We focused on four measures of divergent thinking—or the breadth of biological
models generated during brainstorming about different problems (all assignment prompts
are in Supplementary Tables S2 and S3). First, we counted the total number of examples
generated for the assignment. To measure the taxonomic breadth of the responses, we
counted the total number of taxonomic classes represented in this list (e.g., birds, mammals,
bony fish, insects). We focused on “class” as the taxonomic level (as opposed to genus or
family) because this is the level where we generally learn about and study animal diversity
(e.g., diversity classes are taught around “mammalogy,” “ornithology,” “entomology”).
To assess mammal bias, we counted the number of examples that were mammals and
calculated the “proportion mammals.” Finally, we measured the specificity of the responses
as the number of examples that were a specific past taxonomic class; for instance, “bird”
was not specific while “sparrow” was.
2.6. IRB Approval
This research was conducted under IRB–STUDY00010075 (Approved on 18 June 2020).
Students were informed of this creativity study on the first day of the course. On the second
day of the course, students watched a brief video prepared by the student investigator
that explained the study. Students opted into the study by agreeing to participate in
pre- and post-surveys on creativity (not analyzed in the present study). Otherwise, all
present research made use of regular classroom activities, which were a component of the
students’ grades.
2.7. Assessment of Student Engagement
We wanted to ensure that the online format of the class did not interfere with student
engagement with the material (and thus components of the study). We compared the
results from the 2021 online course to those from the 2018 in-person course. The 2018
course was similar in content but in-person and not taught through a bio-inspired design
lens. We chose this year instead of 2019 or 2020 because the instructor was on sabbatical in
2019, and the spring 2020 semester was atypical in terms of methods, student stress, and
assessment structure due to COVID.
2.8. Statistical Analyses
We ran all statistics and made all figures using R version 4.2.1 (R team 2022). We
first focused our analyses on the role of the prompt versus practice using data from
all of the topics apart from the two assigned to the two interventions (“force”, “grief”,
“anxiety”, “movement”, and “nutrition”). We built general linear mixed models with
students as a random effect using the lme4 package [
51
]. We checked all models for
necessary assumptions, including residual fit and overdispersion. Our response variables
included the number of examples (Poisson model), the number of taxonomic classes
represented (Poisson model), the proportion of responses that were mammals (Binomial
model), and the proportion of responses that were specific (Binomial model). Given that the
effect of the prompt topic was significant, we looked at least-squares means to explore the
pairwise contrasts (t-tests) between different prompts. We could not repeat prompt topics
randomly for different students at different times in the course (the prompts were tied
to course content) and, thus, could not test for the impact of practice (time in the course)
separately from the prompt. However, we could still use the results from our models to
assess the effect of practice by looking at the order of the prompts and how this order
influenced our different response variables.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 7 of 18
Second, to assess the role of individual versus team member expertise in the breadth
of ideas, we initially ran analyses for just the first prompt (“force”). We used a Spear-
man rank correlation test for each of our response variables (breadth of ideas: number of
examples, number of taxonomic classes, mammal bias, specificity) to test for the effects
of an individual’s taxonomic expertise. Then, we turned to the later prompts (“grief”,
“anxiety”, “movement”, and “nutrition”), which came after students had interacted with
team members in breakout rooms, sharing their different examples for previous assign-
ments. We used a metric of individual expertise relative to team member expertise and
used the non-intervention prompts that occurred after teams had worked together. We
used general linear mixed models, as described above, and included student and prompt
topic as random effects.
Finally, to see if our different interventions (none, outdoor, or idea-space) influenced
the creativity of student responses, we used the full data set and built general linear mixed
models for each of our response variables, as described above, and included student and
prompt topic as random effects. To illustrate our results, we present violin plots, which
are a hybrid of a boxplot and a kernel density plot. Violin plots contain all data points
and depict both summary statistics and the density of each variable and are appropriate
for data that do not conform to a normal distribution. We also present results with word
clouds as a visual representation of the list of responses or taxonomic classes, where word
size represents frequency.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of Assignment Participation
Across 180 students and 11 activities (10 required), students completed 2013 total
assignments. These activities were graded for completion, and the average student grade
for the overall “weekly class preparation” assignment was 91% (completing 9 out of
11 prompts would be scored as 90%), although 129 (of 180) students received a perfect score
of 100% (completed at least 10 out of 11 prompts). To ensure that students were engaged
in the class (and thus the assignments) despite the online format, we compared student
evaluation data from the present semester to the previous in-person semester. For the
online semester, more students stated they strongly agreed with the statement “my interest
in the subject matter was stimulated by this course” on the end-of-semester evaluations
(X2 = 10.61, p= 0.01; Supplementary Figure S2).
3.2. Effects of Prompt and Practice
The prompt topic had a significant effect on the number of taxonomic classes repre-
sented, with “force” having the most and “grief” and “anxiety” having the least (F = 14.70,
p< 0.001
, pairwise comparisons in Figure 1A). We found a similar pattern for mammal
bias (F = 58.15, p< 0.001, pairwise comparison in Figure 1B). Figure 2also illustrates these
patterns using word clouds made from student responses and the taxonomic classes repre-
sented for the “force” and “grief” topics. The prompt topic did not significantly influence
the number of examples given or the specificity of the examples. By looking at our prompt
topics in the order they were presented in the course (Figure 1, colors), we found that
practice (time in the course) did not appear to influence our measures of divergent thinking
in a significant way, at least not in any way stronger than the effect of prompt.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 8 of 18
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
Figure 1. Violin plots illustrating the relationship between the prompt topic and (A) the number of
taxonomic classes represented (breadth) in the list of examples given by each student and (B) the
proportion of examples that were mammals (mammal bias). Figures were made with raw data, and
analyses presented in the text include student as a random effect (n = 492). “Force” had greater
breadth (number of taxonomic classes represented) and less mammal bias (proportion of examples
that were mammals) compared to other prompt topics. “Grief” had the least taxonomic breadth and
the most mammal bias, while anxiety, movement, and nutrition were intermediate for both these
measures of divergent thinking. The temporal order these prompts came in the course is represented
by color (e.g., grief and anxiety were assigned the same week) and appeared to have less of an effect
on student responses compared to the topic of the prompt. Letters on the graph denote significant
differences using pairwise t-tests (p < 0.05); raw data are shown as jittered points.
Figure 1.
Violin plots illustrating the relationship between the prompt topic and (
A
) the number of
taxonomic classes represented (breadth) in the list of examples given by each student and (
B
) the
proportion of examples that were mammals (mammal bias). Figures were made with raw data, and
analyses presented in the text include student as a random effect (n = 492). “Force” had greater
breadth (number of taxonomic classes represented) and less mammal bias (proportion of examples
that were mammals) compared to other prompt topics. “Grief” had the least taxonomic breadth and
the most mammal bias, while anxiety, movement, and nutrition were intermediate for both these
measures of divergent thinking. The temporal order these prompts came in the course is represented
by color (e.g., grief and anxiety were assigned the same week) and appeared to have less of an effect
on student responses compared to the topic of the prompt. Letters on the graph denote significant
differences using pairwise t-tests (p< 0.05); raw data are shown as jittered points.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 9 of 18
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
Figure 2. Word clouds for the “grief” and “force” assignments made from all student responses and
from the list of taxonomic classes represented in each student’s set of examples. Word size corre-
sponds to frequency across all student responses. Not surprisingly, responses to the “force” prompt
had a greater diversity of taxonomic classes represented, and fewer of the responses were mammals
(mammal bias) compared to the “grief” prompt. Raw frequency data can be found in [50] under an
open access license.
3.3. Effects of Individual and Team Member Familiarity with Biodiversity
The amount of total expertise that students brought with them to the course had a
small but significant positive influence on the number of taxonomic classes that were rep-
resented in their responses to the “force” question (rho = 0.181, p = 0.02, R2 = 0.012, Figure
3). This was not true when we measured expertise using the Shannon diversity score,
which captures the evenness of knowledge across taxonomic groups. We then considered
the breadth of biological models brainstormed by individuals later in the course, after they
had interacted with team members. Individual expertise had no impact on the number of
examples, specificity, or mammal bias (for total expertise score or Shannon diversity
score), nor did student expertise relative to their group (for grief, anxiety, movement, and
nutrition assignment prompts).
Figure 2.
Word clouds for the “grief” and “force” assignments made from all student responses
and from the list of taxonomic classes represented in each student’s set of examples. Word size
corresponds to frequency across all student responses. Not surprisingly, responses to the “force”
prompt had a greater diversity of taxonomic classes represented, and fewer of the responses were
mammals (mammal bias) compared to the “grief” prompt. Raw frequency data can be found in [
50
]
under an open access license.
3.3. Effects of Individual and Team Member Familiarity with Biodiversity
The amount of total expertise that students brought with them to the course had
a small but significant positive influence on the number of taxonomic classes that were
represented in their responses to the “force” question (rho = 0.181, p= 0.02, R
2
= 0.012,
Figure 3). This was not true when we measured expertise using the Shannon diversity score,
which captures the evenness of knowledge across taxonomic groups. We then considered
the breadth of biological models brainstormed by individuals later in the course, after they
had interacted with team members. Individual expertise had no impact on the number
of examples, specificity, or mammal bias (for total expertise score or Shannon diversity
score), nor did student expertise relative to their group (for grief, anxiety, movement, and
nutrition assignment prompts).

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 10 of 18
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Figure 3. Initial student expertise (total expertise score) had a small but significant effect on the
number of taxonomic classes represented in their list of examples given for the “force” assignment.
The blue line represents a linear model fit to the data (R2 = 0.012) with the standard error in gray.
Analyses presented in the text are from a Spearman rank correlation test.
3.4. Idea-Space and Outdoor Interventions
Our different interventions (outdoor and idea-space) significantly influenced the
number of examples that students gave (F = 39.33, p < 0.001, pairwise comparisons in Fig-
ure 4A) relative to the exercises that came earlier in the course (labeled “none” in Figure
4). In particular, students in our idea-space intervention gave the greatest number of ex-
amples, and students in the outdoor intervention gave the least number of examples. We
found a similar pattern for the number of taxonomic classes represented (F = 7.99, p =
0.003, pairwise comparisons in Figure 4B). The interventions also influenced how specific
the examples were (F = 115.33, p < 0.001, pairwise comparisons in Figure 4C), but in this
case, responses in the initial assignments (force, mental health, healthy choices) were the
most specific, followed by the idea-space intervention, with the outdoor intervention be-
ing the least specific. Finally, we found that both the idea-space and outdoor interventions
helped reduce the mammal bias in the responses relative to earlier exercises in the course
(F = 4.90, p = 0.01, pairwise comparisons in Figure 4D). We also illustrate some of these
patterns in Figure 5 using word clouds to compare student responses in the idea-space
and outdoor interventions to the same question topics, “Communication” and “Coopera-
tion”. We asked students to reflect on their experiences in these two intervention assign-
ments, and a representative subset of their reflections can be seen in Supplementary Table
S4.
Figure 3.
Initial student expertise (total expertise score) had a small but significant effect on the
number of taxonomic classes represented in their list of examples given for the “force” assignment.
The blue line represents a linear model fit to the data (R
2
= 0.012) with the standard error in gray.
Analyses presented in the text are from a Spearman rank correlation test.
3.4. Idea-Space and Outdoor Interventions
Our different interventions (outdoor and idea-space) significantly influenced the
number of examples that students gave (F = 39.33, p< 0.001, pairwise comparisons in
Figure 4A) relative to the exercises that came earlier in the course (labeled “none” in
Figure 4). In particular, students in our idea-space intervention gave the greatest number of
examples, and students in the outdoor intervention gave the least number of examples. We
found a similar pattern for the number of taxonomic classes represented (F = 7.99,
p= 0.003
,
pairwise comparisons in Figure 4B). The interventions also influenced how specific the
examples were (F = 115.33, p< 0.001, pairwise comparisons in Figure 4C), but in this case,
responses in the initial assignments (force, mental health, healthy choices) were the most
specific, followed by the idea-space intervention, with the outdoor intervention being
the least specific. Finally, we found that both the idea-space and outdoor interventions
helped reduce the mammal bias in the responses relative to earlier exercises in the course
(F = 4.90, p= 0.01, pairwise comparisons in Figure 4D). We also illustrate some of these
patterns in Figure 5using word clouds to compare student responses in the idea-space and
outdoor interventions to the same question topics, “Communication” and “Cooperation”.
We asked students to reflect on their experiences in these two intervention assignments,
and a representative subset of their reflections can be seen in Supplementary Table S4.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 11 of 18
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Figure 4. Violin plots visualizing comparisons between the three interventions, none, outdoor, and
idea-space, and student responses, including (A) the number of examples given, (B) the number of
taxonomic classes represented (breadth), (C) the specificity of the responses (proportion of examples
given that were a specific past class), and (D) mammal bias (proportion of examples given that were
mammals). Figures were made with raw data, and analyses presented in the text include student
and question topic as random effects (n = 775). Students in the idea-space intervention generated
more responses, with a greater number of taxonomic classes represented, and their responses were
more specific and had a lower mammal bias compared to the no-intervention treatment. Letters on
the graph denote significant differences using pairwise t-tests (p < 0.05); raw data are shown as jit-
tered points.
Figure 4.
Violin plots visualizing comparisons between the three interventions, none, outdoor, and
idea-space, and student responses, including (
A
) the number of examples given, (
B
) the number of
taxonomic classes represented (breadth), (
C
) the specificity of the responses (proportion of examples
given that were a specific past class), and (
D
) mammal bias (proportion of examples given that were
mammals). Figures were made with raw data, and analyses presented in the text include student
and question topic as random effects (n = 775). Students in the idea-space intervention generated
more responses, with a greater number of taxonomic classes represented, and their responses were
more specific and had a lower mammal bias compared to the no-intervention treatment. Letters
on the graph denote significant differences using pairwise t-tests (p< 0.05); raw data are shown as
jittered points.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 12 of 18
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
Figure 5. Word clouds generated from student responses and the list of represented taxonomic clas-
ses for the “Communication” and “Cooperation” assignments that were completed factorially with
the outdoor and idea-space interventions. The idea-space intervention elicited a greater number of
examples, a greater diversity of taxonomic classes, and examples that were more specific relative to
the outdoor treatment. Raw frequency data can be found in [50] under an open access license.
4. Discussion
4.1. Findings
Generating a range of ideas early in the problem-solving process is an important
driver of original, creative, and innovative ideas [28]. In this research, we sought to in-
crease the breadth of analogous biological models generated during the bio-inspired de-
sign process. We have much to learn from the adaptations of over ten million species on
Earth, but exploring biodiversity for ideas can be challenging, as we are limited by our
own biases and knowledge. The taxonomic diversity of ideas is often important in bio-
inspired design because evolutionary constraints can result in traits that are imperfect
from an engineering design perspective. A way around this is to look to how different
organisms solve the same problem in different ways and mix and match strategies in one’s
own application. Thus, we were interested in how to push students away from inherent
biases toward familiar mammals to consider a range of other models. Our results suggest
that we are indeed drawn to mammals and “charismatic megafauna” in our brainstorm-
ing, especially for certain topics. However, we found evidence that some interventions
could increase the range of biological models generated.
In our consideration of the prompt versus practice, we found no support for the hy-
pothesis that students improve in their brainstorming ability with time, across assign-
ments [38,39]. Instead, the primary driver of divergent thinking across initial assignments
seemed to be the assignment prompt. In particular, prompts about problems that were
Figure 5.
Word clouds generated from student responses and the list of represented taxonomic
classes for the “Communication” and “Cooperation” assignments that were completed factorially
with the outdoor and idea-space interventions. The idea-space intervention elicited a greater number
of examples, a greater diversity of taxonomic classes, and examples that were more specific relative
to the outdoor treatment. Raw frequency data can be found in [50] under an open access license.
4. Discussion
4.1. Findings
Generating a range of ideas early in the problem-solving process is an important driver
of original, creative, and innovative ideas [
28
]. In this research, we sought to increase the
breadth of analogous biological models generated during the bio-inspired design process.
We have much to learn from the adaptations of over ten million species on Earth, but
exploring biodiversity for ideas can be challenging, as we are limited by our own biases
and knowledge. The taxonomic diversity of ideas is often important in bio-inspired design
because evolutionary constraints can result in traits that are imperfect from an engineering
design perspective. A way around this is to look to how different organisms solve the same
problem in different ways and mix and match strategies in one’s own application. Thus,
we were interested in how to push students away from inherent biases toward familiar
mammals to consider a range of other models. Our results suggest that we are indeed
drawn to mammals and “charismatic megafauna” in our brainstorming, especially for
certain topics. However, we found evidence that some interventions could increase the
range of biological models generated.
In our consideration of the prompt versus practice, we found no support for the
hypothesis that students improve in their brainstorming ability with time, across assign-
ments [
38
,
39
]. Instead, the primary driver of divergent thinking across initial assignments
seemed to be the assignment prompt. In particular, prompts about problems that were more
related to cognitive decisions and mental states resulted in lists with the lowest taxonomic
diversity and a much greater mammal bias (Figures 1and 2). For instance, “anxiety” had

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 13 of 18
huge skews toward mammals, despite the prevalence of fear responses across animals.
Even “nutrition” (i.e., foraging decisions) had a high mammal bias, despite foraging be-
havior being nearly universal across animals. In contrast, the “force” prompt, the first
assignment of the semester, resulted in the highest diversity of responses. The bias toward
charismatic species and mammals parallels human biases in other areas, such as conserva-
tion funding [
36
,
37
]. Our finding, that the breadth of brainstorming did not improve over
time, is consistent with other studies critiquing the idea of creativity training, which instead
suggests that the observed effects of practice are more consistent with learning to do better
with particular brainstorming prompts [
52
]. In the case of ideas for bio-inspired design,
it is possible that improvement with time comes more from learning the natural history
of many species, rather than practicing with the activity per se. To that end, encouraging
students to take biodiversity survey courses (e.g., ornithology, entomology) in parallel with
a bio-inspired design course may be a more effective intervention.
We found moderate support for the idea that prior biological knowledge is related to
the range of biological models generated. There was a small but significant relationship
between an individual’s self-ranked familiarity with a range of animal groups and the
taxonomic diversity of models brainstormed in their first assignment (in terms of the num-
ber of taxonomic classes of animals). This finding parallels findings that when engineers
collaborate with biologists with broad expertise on biodiversity, their lists of biological
analogies are more diverse [
11
,
33
]. However, in our results, the correlation coefficient
between expertise and the diversity of ideas was modest (~0.1), suggesting many other
factors are at play. As we asked students to self-assess their knowledge, it is likely that our
metrics are not a very accurate indicator of biological knowledge; indeed, students with
some familiarity with a taxonomic group may be aware of all of the species they do not
know (under-assessing knowledge), just as much as some students may over-assess their
knowledge. A quiz on biological knowledge would likely be a better indicator for future
tests of this idea.
We found no support for the idea that individuals in student teams with members
with rich biodiversity expertise benefitted in terms of the breadth of their ideas later in the
semester. This is contrary to expectations from the literature suggesting that the diversity
of deep expertise within a group of collaborators leads to more creative thinking and
idea generation ([
44
–
46
], although these studies tend to focus on professionals instead of
students). These results are suggestive of observations that the quality of team interactions
is key, as creativity can be stifled by conflict and stress [
53
]. Diversity within teams is
only beneficial if there are mechanisms in place to promote meaningful interactions and a
culture of respect, equality, and inclusion [
46
,
54
–
56
]. To this end, the online nature of this
course imposed serious constraints. While students were in the same teams throughout the
semester, these were online breakout groups on Zoom, limiting the ability to build familiar-
ity over time, which is key for group dynamics around creativity [
57
,
58
]. Students started
the semester with a team norming exercise to discuss pet peeves in group discussions and
how they wanted to run their discussions, but there was no oversight of this within these
30 teams. In-person interactions where the instructor(s) could wander between teams could
help foster more engagement and meaningful team interactions. It is also possible that
team interactions simply had limited effects on these individual assignments, and working
together to generate team lists may have been more effective [59].
We tested the effectiveness of two interventions to increase the breadth of divergent
thinking. We found strong support for our “idea-space” intervention, which used online
tools to explicitly push students into new parts of the tree of life or new biomes or ge-
ographic areas for ideas. This intervention increased the total number of ideas and the
taxonomic breadth of these ideas relative to all other exercises in the course (even though
in many of the prior exercises, students were also using Google to help generate their lists).
While this intervention was statistically effective, comments from students stressed several
challenges with this intervention (Supplementary Table S4). First, the assignment itself was
complex, suggesting future iterations should break it into smaller pieces, for instance, by

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 14 of 18
focusing on evolutionary space one week and ecological space another week. Second, it
was clear that students were limited by their own knowledge of the species that would pop
up in their search. A name and an image of an animal do not capture the natural history of
the biological model that is necessary to draw an analogy to the assigned problem. Third,
in efforts to sample other parts of the evolutionary tree, students kept getting pushed into
the hyperdiverse parts of the tree, such as insects (or beetles), sometimes to the detriment of
exploring other poorly explored branches. Finally, students seemed to like this intervention
less, possibly reflecting discomfort with being pushed into areas that were less familiar
and where they had less knowledge of biological diversity. However, small amounts of
discomfort can be important in learning new things and promoting divergent thinking, but
the proper support during such uncomfortable explorations is needed [60].
We were also interested in the role of going outdoors in the creative process. We
found no support for our outdoor intervention increasing the breadth of ideas generated,
contrary to predictions from the literature [
47
,
48
]. Somewhat surprisingly, the range of ideas
generated was actually lower than in previous assignments (Figures 4and 5). However, the
students clearly enjoyed this activity and engaged with nature, even in urban environments,
suggesting that the exercise still has important value. Ideas generated outdoors tended
to converge on a number of common and easily observable models, such as squirrels,
humans, and dogs (which are especially observable during April in Minnesota). These
findings are consistent with at least one study that found that going outside alone does
not necessarily increase creativity [
61
]; instead, it may need to be coupled with other
interventions. Revisions to this assignment might include explicit instruction to break out
of a routine when wandering outside, such as “bring a trowel and dig through the dirt
and leaf litter” or “use binoculars and a field guide to think about different species you
observe while wandering.” In addition, noticing new things is often challenging in familiar
environments, suggesting that students should be encouraged to visit habitats separate
from their typical daily routine. Indeed, the few students who visited zoos or state parks
included unique species relative to other students. This exercise also reflects the constraints
of an outdoor activity at the end of winter in Minnesota; encouraging students to repeat
this activity at different time points or in different biomes (e.g., on spring break) could
increase its effectiveness.
4.2. Recommendations and Limitations
This research provides several recommendations for increasing the diversity of ideas
generated during the bio-inspired design process. First, biodesigners should be aware of
their taxonomic biases that come into a brainstorming session, especially for problems that
may be considered more human-centric. They can use online tools such as Wikipedia or
the tree-of-life “random page” generator to push them into new parts of the tree of life
or different ecosystems to increase the breadth of biological models considered. Second,
bio-designers may benefit from cultivating knowledge of the biology of several groups of
organisms and learning about the natural history and diversity across species. Individual
expertise is important (e.g., Figure 3), but the most common hang-up in searching for ideas
is limited knowledge of the biology of a model, as this is key to making the analogy bridge
between biology and design. Third, partnerships with biologists with complementary
expertise can be incredibly important, but interactions must be structured in a meaningful
and respectful way, and brainstorming performed collaboratively is likely to have a bigger
impact on these team interactions (e.g., idea pooling [
59
]). Finally, going outside and getting
into biology often spurs engagement with organisms but does not necessarily increase
the breadth of biological models generated. We might consider outdoor interventions to
increase connections to the natural history of some core, common organisms, which we can
then build on through online explorations to increase the breadth of ideas. Alternatively,
we could couple outdoor activities with additional interventions that increase exposure
to new organisms, whether it is bringing a trowel to dig in the ground or going to a new
location or habitat.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 15 of 18
While our findings suggest several broad take-homes with respect to divergent think-
ing in the bio-inspired design process, it is important to note that there may be limitations
in extrapolating from our study population. Our approach was constrained by the topic of
the course (Animal Behavior) and the typical population that enrolls in this course. The
students were all undergraduates studying biology, not designers and engineers. While
this no doubt affects the number of biological examples that come to mind for the prompts
in this study, it is not clear whether the relative effects observed here would differ for
non-biologists. For instance, we might expect that the relative performance of the two
interventions would remain the same. However, it is likely that the effect of learning from
others could be more important for a population with less prior knowledge of biology. In
addition, it is possible that students from backgrounds with more training in creativity
would be inherently better at brainstorming tasks once they are armed with tools to gather
biological knowledge.
Throughout this work, we have stressed the importance of exploring a range of
biological models across the tree of life in the initial stages of a bio-inspired design process.
However, it is important to note that in the subsequent steps of a bio-inspired design process,
the biodesigner may indeed choose to work with common or standard biological models.
There are many reasons why choosing to work with these models can be beneficial. First, we
are often biased toward models where we have more background knowledge (familiarity
begets more studies and more familiarity). We often need an in-depth understanding of
how traits work to abstract principles relevant to design. For instance, within studies of
structural color, there is a large bias toward butterflies, despite structural color in many
other species (e.g., some plants and beetles). There is now a huge body of literature on how
butterfly wing scales function to reflect light in specific ways—necessary knowledge for
the translation to something such as screen design—but there are relatively few studies on
mechanisms in other species. Second, for some problems, it is possible that some lineages
of life are truly more relevant. For instance, models relevant to studying the problem area
of “grief” do tend to be larger-brained and social species; however, these are not limited to
mammals (parrots, magpies, and ravens also show evidence of grief [
62
]). Third, for some
bio-inspired applications, we may need to constrain ourselves to specific branches of the
tree of life to increase the chances of translation. For instance, in many medical applications,
we may increase the chance of a successful translation by studying species more closely
related to humans. When beginning a bio-inspired design process, it may help to step back
and identify whether we want to overcome biases or embrace them.
4.3. Future Research
This work highlights several important areas for future research and development with
respect to the bio-inspired design process. First, we are missing search tools that promote
taxonomic breadth while also integrating the biological and natural history knowledge
necessary for making the analogy between a design problem and the biological model of
interest. For instance, one has to know something about how the mantis shrimp hunts
to know that it is a good model for thinking about force generation [
63
]. Tools such as
Google Scholar or Ask Nature allow a biodesigner to explore adaptations around form and
function but have no integrated ability to “diversify” the list with respect to evolutionary
relatedness or biogeography. The ability is possible in terms of machine learning (e.g., an
algorithm figuring out the organisms studied in a paper) and phylogenetic databases
(e.g., classifications in Wikipedia are generally up to date), but such a search engine
has yet to be built (to our knowledge). Second, our interventions and the qualitative
responses of students suggested a variety of exercises that would have an even greater
impact on divergent thinking in the bio-inspired design process, but future studies would
need to assess their effectiveness. For instance, does coupling an outdoor intervention
with direction to look through binoculars increase the range of ideas generated, or does
the student have to go outside with a field guide or a fellow student who has a deep
knowledge of birds? Does exploring the tree of life result in a more creative list than

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 16 of 18
considering different geographic areas? Third, while our assignments focused on the
brainstorming list, we did not assess the quality of the analogy between the focal problem
and the biological model generated. Adding questions to assignments to assess the link
with the concept of function would allow us to make progress here. Finally, how do these
brainstorming exercises, which were explored in a classroom setting, translate to actual
bio-design processes where biologists, designers, and engineers are collaborating to build
something? Future work can test whether these interventions influence whether resulting
designs are more innovative, effective, or sustainable when they come from more diverse
lists of possible biological models.
4.4. Conclusions
In this research, we found strong support for the hypothesis that the explicit consid-
eration of evolutionary and ecological relationships can increase the taxonomic breadth
of biological models generated during the brainstorming phase of a bio-inspired design
process. An individual’s prior expertise with biological diversity contributed somewhat
to their breadth of ideas, but exploring with online tools such as Wikipedia or the “tree of
life” can push students into new idea spaces. We found no evidence that going outside per
se increased the taxonomic breadth of ideas, but it is possible that combining this activity
with more directed activities (e.g., “look under a rock”) would encourage students to move
beyond the most obvious and familiar organisms encountered outdoors. Based on these
findings, we generated a number of recommendations for idea generation in bio-inspired
design and future research.
Supplementary Materials:
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biomimetics8010048/s1, Figure S1: Image associated with the “idea-
space” prompt; Figure S2: Distribution of student evaluation data between semesters where the course
was problem-based (2021) versus a more traditional format (2018); Table S1: Schedule of Class Topics;
Table S2: List of pre-class brainstorming prompts for the first set of topics; Table S3: Assignment
prompts for intervention comparisons; Table S4: Student reflections on the two interventions.
Author Contributions:
This study was conceived by E.S. and E.C.S.-R.; in collaboration with G.H.R.;
and D.S., E.S. and E.C.S.-R. designed the classroom interventions, which E.C.S.-R. carried out while
teaching the Animal Behavior course. A.K.H. directed all data processing, transcription, and analysis.
A.K.H. and E.C.S.-R. led the writing with input from co-authors. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This work was supported by a grant from the Templeton Foundation on Function as a
Bridge between Biology and Design, within the broader “Science of Purpose” program (Award 10996).
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Minnesota (IRB–
STUDY00010075, approved on 18 June 2020).
Data Availability Statement:
All raw (anonymized) data and code used in the analysis are available
on Mendeley [50].
Acknowledgments:
We are grateful for comments from the Snell-Rood lab, the “Purpose project”
collaborative group, and two anonymous reviewers that greatly improved this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Lepora, N.F.; Verschure, P.; Prescott, T.J. The state of the art in biomimetics. Bioinspiration Biomim.
2013
,8, 013001. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2.
Bonser, R.H.C.; Vincent, J.F.V. Technology trajectories, innovation, and the growth of biomimetics. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J.
Mech. Eng. Sci. 2007,221, 1177–1180. [CrossRef]
3. Goel, A.K.; McAdams, D.A.; Stone, R.B. Biologically Inspired Design; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015.
4. Farzaneh, H.H.; Lindemann, U. A practical Guide to Bio-Inspired Design; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 17 of 18
5.
Fan, W.; Zeng, J.; Gan, Q.Q.; Ji, D.X.; Song, H.M.; Liu, W.Z.; Shi, L.; Wu, L.M. Iridescence-controlled and flexibly tunable
retroreflective structural color film for smart displays. Sci. Adv. 2019,5, eaaw8755. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Chung, K.; Yu, S.; Heo, C.J.; Shim, J.W.; Yang, S.M.; Han, M.G.; Lee, H.S.; Jin, Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Park, N.; et al. Flexible, Angle-
Independent, Structural Color Reflectors Inspired by Morpho Butterfly Wings. Adv. Mater. 2012,24, 2375–2379. [CrossRef]
7.
Modabberifar, M.; Spenko, M. Development of a gecko-like robotic gripper using Scott-Russell mechanisms. Robotica
2020
,38,
541–549. [CrossRef]
8.
Northen, M.T.; Greiner, C.; Arzt, E.; Turner, K.L. A Gecko-Inspired Reversible Adhesive. Adv. Mater.
2008
,20, 3905–3909.
[CrossRef]
9. Snell-Rood, E. Bring biologists into biomimetics. Nature 2016,529, 277–278. [CrossRef]
10.
Ng, L.; Elgar, M.A.; Stuart-Fox, D. From Bioinspired to Bioinformed: Benefits of Greater Engagement From Biologists. Front. Ecol.
Evol. 2021,9, 790270. [CrossRef]
11. Graeff, E.; Maranzana, N.; Aoussat, A. Biomimetics, where are the biologists? J. Eng. Des. 2019,30, 289–310. [CrossRef]
12.
Jacobs, S.R.; Nichol, E.C.; Helms, M.E. “Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?” The BioM Innovation Database. J. Mech.
Des. 2014,136, 111101. [CrossRef]
13.
Penick, C.A.; Cope, G.; Morankar, S.; Mistry, Y.; Grishin, A.; Chawla, N.; Bhate, D. The Comparative Approach to Bio-Inspired
Design: Integrating Biodiversity and Biologists into the Design Process. Integr. Comp. Biol.
2022
,62, 1153–1163. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
14.
Scali, M.; Breedveld, P.; Dodou, D. Experimental evaluation of a self-propelling bio-inspired needle in single- and multi-layered
phantoms. Sci. Rep. 2019,9, 1–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Han, Z.W.; Mu, Z.Z.; Yin, W.; Li, W.; Niu, S.C.; Zhang, J.Q.; Ren, L.Q. Biomimetic multifunctional surfaces inspired from animals.
Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016,234, 27–50. [CrossRef]
16.
Kirya, P.; Chen, E.; Achterman, M.; Eugenio, K.; Beshir, Z.; Ngoy, N.; Siddique, R.H.; Cakmak, A.O.; Ashcroft, J. Biomimicry of
Blue Morpho butterfly wings: An introduction to nanotechnology through an interdisciplinary science education module. J. Soc.
Inf. Disp. 2021,29, 896–915. [CrossRef]
17.
Prum, R.O.; Quinn, T.; Torres, R.H. Anatomically diverse butterfly scales all produce structural colours by coherent scattering.
J. Exp. Biol. 2006,209, 748–765. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Thayer, R.C.; Allen, F.I.; Patel, N.H. Structural color in Junonia butterflies evolves by tuning scale lamina thickness. elife
2020
,
9, e52187. [CrossRef]
19.
Blount, Z.D.; Borland, C.Z.; Lenski, R.E. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental
population of Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008,105, 7899–7906. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Hoffmann, A.; Donoghue, M.; Levin, S.; Mackay, T.; Rieseberg, L.; Travis, J.; Wray, G. Evolutionary limits and constraints. Princet.
Guide Evol. 2014, 247–252.
21.
Fish, F.E.; Beneski, J.T. Evolution and bio-inspired design: Natural limitations. In Biologically Inspired Design; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 287–312.
22. Shubin, N. Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body; Vintage: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
23.
Agrawal, A.A. Toward a Predictive Framework for Convergent Evolution: Integrating Natural History, Genetic Mechanisms, and
Consequences for the Diversity of Life. Am. Nat. 2017,190, S1–S12. [CrossRef]
24.
Sorensen, M.E.S.; Wood, A.J.; Minter, E.J.A.; Lowe, C.D.; Cameron, D.D.; Brockhurst, M.A. Comparison of Independent
Evolutionary Origins Reveals Both Convergence and Divergence in the Metabolic Mechanisms of Symbiosis. Curr. Biol.
2020
,
30, 328–334. [CrossRef]
25.
Rosenblum, E.B.; Parent, C.E.; Brandt, E.E. The Molecular Basis of Phenotypic Convergence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.
2014
,
45, 203–226. [CrossRef]
26. Runco, M.A. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004,55, 657–687. [CrossRef]
27. Hennessey, B.A.; Amabile, T.M. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010,61, 569–598. [CrossRef]
28. Runco, M.A.; Acar, S. Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential. Creat. Res. J. 2012,24, 66–75. [CrossRef]
29.
Chou, A.; Shu, L.H. Using analogies to explain versus inspire concepts. Ai Edam-Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf.
2015
,29,
135–146. [CrossRef]
30.
Fu, K.; Moreno, D.; Yang, M.; Wood, K.L. Bio-Inspired Design: An Overview Investigating Open Questions from the Broader
Field of Design-by-Analogy. J. Mech. Des. 2014,136, 111102. [CrossRef]
31.
Deldin, J.-M.; Schuknecht, M. The AskNature database: Enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In Biologically Inspired Design;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 17–27.
32.
Vandevenne, D.; Pieters, T.; Duflou, J.R. Enhancing novelty with knowledge-based support for Biologically-Inspired Design. Des.
Stud. 2016,46, 152–173. [CrossRef]
33.
Graeff, E.; Maranzana, N.; Aoussat, A. Role of biologists in biomimetic design processes: Preliminary results. In Proceedings of DS
92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference; pp. 1149–1160.
34.
Hallihan, G.M.; Shu, L.H. Considering Confirmation Bias in Design and Design Research. J. Integr. Des. Process Sci.
2013
,17,
19–35. [CrossRef]
35. Osterblom, H.; Scheffer, M.; Westley, F.R.; van Esso, M.L.; Miller, J.; Bascompte, J. A message from magic to science: Seeing how
the brain can be tricked may strengthen our thinking. Ecol. Soc. 2015,20, 16. [CrossRef]

Biomimetics 2023,8, 48 18 of 18
36.
Olsen, I.M. Beyond Taxonomic Bias in Extinction Discourse: Endangerment, Alterity, and Noncharismatic Species in Annie
Proulx’s Barkskins and Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game. Isle-Interdiscip. Stud. Lit. Environ. 2021, isab001. [CrossRef]
37.
Colleony, A.; Clayton, S.; Couvet, D.; Saint Jalme, M.; Prevot, A.C. Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma
trumps endangered status. Biol. Conserv. 2017,206, 263–269. [CrossRef]
38.
Baruah, J.; Paulus, P.B. The Role of Time and Category Relatedness in Electronic Brainstorming. Small Group Res.
2016
,47, 333–342.
[CrossRef]
39.
Scott, G.; Leritz, L.E.; Mumford, M.D. The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creat. Res. J.
2004
,16,
361–388. [CrossRef]
40.
Beaty, R.E.; Silvia, P.J. Why Do Ideas Get More Creative Across Time? An Executive Interpretation of the Serial Order Effect in
Divergent Thinking Tasks. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2012,6, 309–319. [CrossRef]
41.
Sun, J.Z.; Chen, Q.L.; Zhang, Q.L.; Li, Y.D.; Li, H.J.; Wei, D.T.; Yang, W.J.; Qiu, J. Training your brain to be more creative: Brain
functional and structural changes induced by divergent thinking training. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2016,37, 3375–3387. [CrossRef]
42.
Ericsson, K.A.; Krampe, R.T.; Teschromer, C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol. Rev.
1993,100, 363–406. [CrossRef]
43.
Hundschell, A.; Razinskas, S.; Backmann, J.; Hoegl, M. The effects of diversity on creativity: A literature review and synthesis.
Appl. Psychol.-Int. Rev.-Psychol. Appl.-Rev. Int. 2022,71, 1598–1634. [CrossRef]
44.
Han, J.; Brass, D.J. Human capital diversity in the creation of social capital for team creativity. J. Organ. Behav.
2014
,35, 54–71.
[CrossRef]
45.
Park, J.Y.; Im, I.; Sung, C.S. Is social networking a waste of time? The impact of social network and knowledge characteristics on
job performance. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2017,15, 560–571. [CrossRef]
46.
Bodla, A.A.; Tang, N.Y.; Jiang, W.; Tian, L.W. Diversity and creativity in cross-national teams: The role of team knowledge sharing
and inclusive climate. J. Manag. Organ. 2018,24, 711–729. [CrossRef]
47.
McCoy, J.M.; Evans, G.W. The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creat. Res. J.
2002
,14, 409–426.
[CrossRef]
48.
Atchley, R.A.; Strayer, D.L.; Atchley, P. Creativity in the Wild: Improving Creative Reasoning through Immersion in Natural
Settings. PLoS ONE 2012,7, e51474. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49.
Snell-Rood, E.; Smirnoff, D.; Cantrell, H.; Chapman, K.; Kirscht, E.; Stretch, E. Bioinspiration as a method of problem-based
STEM education: A case study with a class structured around the COVID-19 crisis. Ecol. Evol.
2021
,11, 16374–16386. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
50.
Hund, A.; Stretch, E.; Smirnoff, D.; Roehrig, G.; Snell-Rood, E. Broadening the taxonomic breadth of organisms in the bio-inspired
design process. Mendeley Data 2023, V1. [CrossRef]
51.
Bates, D.; Machler, M.; Bolker, B.M.; Walker, S.C. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw.
2015
,67, 1–48.
[CrossRef]
52. Mansfield, R.S.; Busse, T.V.; Krepelka, E.J. The effectiveness of creativity training. Rev. Educ. Res. 1978,48, 517–536. [CrossRef]
53.
West, M.A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work
groups. Appl. Psychol.-Int. Rev.-Psychol. Appl.-Rev. Int. 2002,51, 355–387. [CrossRef]
54.
Park, W.W.; Lew, J.Y.; Lee, E.K. Team knowledge diversity and team creativity: The moderating role of status inequality. Soc.
Behav. Personal. 2018,46, 1611–1622. [CrossRef]
55.
Garcia-Buades, M.E.; Peiro, J.M.; Montanez-Juan, M.I.; Kozusznik, M.W.; Ortiz-Bonnin, S. Happy-Productive Teams and Work
Units: A Systematic Review of the ‘Happy-Productive Worker Thesis’. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 69. [CrossRef]
56.
Men, C.H.; Fong, P.; Luo, J.L.; Zhong, J.; Huo, W.W. When and how knowledge sharing benefits team creativity: The importance
of cognitive team diversity. J. Manag. Organ. 2019,25, 807–824. [CrossRef]
57.
Harrison, D.A.; Mohammed, S.; McGrath, J.E.; Florey, A.T.; Vanderstoep, S.W. Time matters in team performance: Effects of
member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Pers. Psychol. 2003,56, 633–669. [CrossRef]
58.
Zhang, Y. Functional Diversity and Group Creativity: The Role of Group Longevity. J. Appl. Behav. Sci.
2016
,52, 97–123. [CrossRef]
59.
Michinov, N. Is Electronic Brainstorming or Brainwriting the Best Way to Improve Creative Performance in Groups? An
Overlooked Comparison of Two Idea-Generation Techniques. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012,42, E222–E243. [CrossRef]
60.
Edwards, G. Discomfort as Creative Fuel. In The Creativity Workbook for Coaches and Creatives; Routledge: Boca Raton, FL, USA,
2020; pp. 24–27.
61.
Jurik, R.A. The Outdoors: An Environmental Condition to Nurture Creative Thinking. Master ’s Thesis, ERIC Clearinghouse,
Penn State University, Washington, DC, USA, 1972.
62. Alderton, D. Animal Grief-How Animals Mourn; Veloce Publishing Ltd.: Poundbury, UK, 2011.
63.
Patek, S.N. The Power of Mantis Shrimp Strikes: Interdisciplinary Impacts of an Extreme Cascade of Energy Release. Integr. Comp.
Biol. 2019,59, 1573–1585. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.