Biomimicry or biomimetics is defined as a “new science” according to Janine Benyus, author of the internationally known book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. By stating that, she apparently did not have in mind what significance it should have for architectural design. Admittedly, Benyus' book is written in a rather anecdotal way, and it is not the aim of this paper to analyse it. But it had such a wide audience that its effects have impacted various fields including architecture and the philosophy of science. These consequences in specific fields need to be studied. Indeed, when the idea of biomimicry or biomimetics enters the field of architecture, some odd consequences arise. Let's first bring back how she defines biomimicry as: “a new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems”  Here we see the concept of “science” put together with that of “design”. Architecture is certainly a design activity aiming to solve human problems, but it is not known as a science, at least not in any classical meaning of science. For this reason, the concept of “biomimetic architecture” may cause confusion. In fact, certain confusion can be observed in the field of biomimetic architecture when looking for some conceptual clarity. As it emerges at the crossroad of two disciplinary domains - architectural design and biological sciences - it may carry ingredients of both. But where science stops, where art begins, where does technology helps are questions that biomimetic architecture cannot answer clearly. Architects are generally not trained as scientists and biologists generally not as designers, and therefor they tend to give contradictory answers to these questions. As we observed in studies and with students, architects are often misled by an overestimation of the role of science in biomimetic design. As a matter of fact, there is no shared explicit method to lead a biomimetic architectural design process. Implementations and case studies are mainly empirical and, expect few recipes and rules of thumb, there is no clear falsifiable theory. This conceptual mud would be trivial if the stakes where not that high. We see at least three reasons to be concerned about this conceptual confusion: 1) architects and students willing to start designing biomimetic projects will fail if they do not know whether they should engage in scientific activity and how it should transform their regular design practice, 2) the notion of science serves as a justification playing a role in various power issues, 3) if the sustainable aim pursued by biomimetic architecture is really an important issue for our world, then biomimeticians should be interested in not talking nonsense in the name of sustainability. This paper analyses this conceptual perplexity. For this purpose, we will first recall how biology and science are dragged into biomimetic architecture. Secondly, we will show how these claims are problematic compared to real practices of biomimetic architectural design as empirically observed. Thirdly, we will propose and define the concept of two forcings movements to elucidate this confusion. For the purpose of this article, we need to clarify some conceptual distinctions. Before entering the confusion and mix between concepts, their unadulterated meaning should be recalled. We refer to these meanings as “classical” only to distinguish them from the contemporary changes that will be observed afterwards in the field of biomimetics. It is a matter of common linguistic convention.

Journal Homepage: https://www.imedpub.com/annals-of-biological-sciences/

Regards,
Catherine
Journal Co-Ordinator
Annals of Biological Sciences