Luke Freeman
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology - Review #7
11/2/18
Patel, Neel. “Scientists Taught a Spider How to Jump so They Can One Day Do the Same for
Neel Patel’s article, published by Popular Science, serves as a great explanation of the process scientists are using to study mechanisms of animals and their potential implementations into the world of robotics. Specifically, Patel hones in on the research done in relation to the ways in which spiders are able to jump. The article is opened up with the description of the near gravity defying ability of the spiders to leap over six times the distance their body, while holding a mass equivalent to five times their weight (Patel, 1). By contrasting this with the humans ability to jump a meager 1.5 times their height from standing still, Patel shows the reader how adapted other organisms are for their environment, as well as begin to introduce why this topic is worth studying. In fact, Patel goes so far as to hint that this remarkable ability of spiders could reshape the engineering and robotics fields alike. Most of the information present in the article is taken from a study recently conducted by researchers from the University of Manchester (UK), and published in the Scientific Reports. The research consisted of placing a regal jumping spider on platforms of various distances apart, and analyzing the take-off using high speed slow motion footage. Patel quotes Russell Garwood, a co-author of the research, as saying, “‘Our key finding for this species is that short range jumps tend to use low angled trajectories that minimize flight time’” (Patel, 1). Jumps of this range are said to favor speed and precision. For longer range jumps, it is flight time, distance, and conservation of energy that are favored. One key limiter to the range in which this particular species of spider can jump is eyesight. While the Phidippus regius (the spider studied) does possess eight total eyes, it does not allow for a large range of sight, which likely explains why they did not attempt a jump of over 60mm. Finally, Patel includes the findings on whether or not blood-powered hydraulics are an essential factor in spiders’ ability to pull of such leaps. Unfortunately the researchers were unable to fully disprove this notion, however, they are suggesting that it is likely the leg muscle mass that is able to produce the thrust needed for the jumps.
The greatest real world application for such research, as alluded to earlier, would be the engineering and robotics fields. By studying the muscle structure and take-off form, researchers will hopefully be able to successfully replicate the technique using man-made materials in the near future. While the research team at the University of Manchester did attempt to model a spider-like prototype based on CT scans of the legs of the spider, their jumping model failed miserably. Clearly, more extensive research into the muscle tissue and composition is needed in order to accurately replicate this amazing feat of nature. One limiting factor in the rapid development of robotics in the real world has been the inability to incorporate jumping physics into robots. This fine balance between weight and ability to propel a robot in the air is the unsolved mystery that has kept most robots grounded. The research done with the regal spider, outlined by Patel, hoped to solve this issue. That being said, this study was a necessary first step into understanding the complex biology behind this evolutionary achievement. Once we fully know how this process works, and are able to replicate it using modern biomechanical processes, robotics can take the next step (or should I say leap) into a future dominated by aerial travel.
While Patel’s article was overall very eye-opening and interesting, there are some improvements that could be made. Right off the bat, the article sports multiple grammatical and spelling errors. Some words even lacked spaces in between them, such as the phrase, “In factthe” (Patel, 2). A larger, more serious issue with the article itself is that it lacked some scientific information. While I understand that this is simply an article and not a full research paper, Patel could have furthered his credibility by citing more statistics and high-level research. That being said, Patel’s article was very strong in developing real world connections to the studying of spiders. The end of Patel’s piece is solely devoted to this purpose, and does a great job of outlining the potential uses of the research. I only wish he would have told the reader the next step in the studying of this topic, but I do not blame him as he is by no means an expert in the field. Regardless, the article was largely intriguing, and even a bit frightening, as it causes the reader to imagine the future world in which robots will possess arachnid-like characteristics of movement.
Jordan Hoang
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology C Even
10/3/18
Patel, Neel. “Scientists Taught a Spider How to Jump so They Can One Day Do the Same for
Robots.” Popular Science, PopSci, 8 May 2018, www.popsci.com/jumping-spiders-muscles.
Luke’s review on “Scientists Taught a Spider How to Jump so They Can One Day Do the Same for Robots” was written well and had many positives to it. He did a nice job at comparing the abilities of spiders to humans, as shown in the statement “by contrasting this with the humans ability to jump a meager 1.5 times their height from standing still, Patel shows the reader how adapted other organisms are for their environment”. By writing it this way, Luke made it explicit to readers how powerful these creatures really are. In addition, I liked how his review was fluid and clean. He transitioned well between thoughts, which made for an comprehensible and easy read. Concluding his review, Luke ended with a personal note stating that this research was “even a bit frightening, as it causes the reader to imagine the future world in which robots will possess arachnid-like characteristics of movement”. I thought that this was a thoughtful statement and made for an interesting end to his piece.
While I found Luke’s review to be informative and intriguing, there are a few parts of his work that could be improved. First of all, I felt as though some of his descriptions were unnecessarily long. He mentioned a great amount about both the restrictions and capabilities of the spider, but failed to highlight how all of them pertain to robotic science. For instance, he wrote on how the eyesight of a spider faltered their ability to jump above 60 mm, but didn’t explain thoroughly on how this applies to the study of robotics. For these reasons, I would have actually prefered if Luke had been more concise and straightforward in his review. To add to this thought, I believe that some of his information from his second paragraph could have been moved into his introduction. The statement “one limiting factor in the rapid development of robotics has been the inability to incorporate jumping physics in robotics” would have been better suited for his summary instead of his “real world application”. To replace the information in the second paragraph, I would have liked to see more of his personal take on the research instead. Although this was a hard topic to write succinctly about, it would have been more interesting to hear about his thoughts rather than having almost two paragraphs summarizing the article.
It was amazing to read that something as minimal as a spider’s jump could have such astounding influence on a field of science. To also hear that spiders are able to “leap over six times the distance of their body” is very surprising to me. It really proves to me how intricate other creatures are and how much more we have to learn about them. It makes me curious as to how we can continue to apply the study of these animals to other aspects of science and innovation.