Effective bioinspiration requires dialogue between designers and biologists, and this dialogue must be rooted in a shared scientific understanding of living systems. To support learning from “nature’s overarching design lessons” the Biomimicry Institute has produced ten “Unifying Patterns of Nature”. These patterns have been developed to engage with those interested in finding biologically inspired solutions to human challenges. Yet, although well-intentioned and appealing, they are likely to dishearten biologists. The aim of this paper is to identify why and propose alternative principles based on evolutionary theory. Bioinspired or biomimetic innovation depends on effective communication between many disciplines, with biology being central to its success. In order to maximise the chances of fruitful discourse, the basics of biology should be understood by those involved in the bioinspiration process. Biologists have an essential role to play in facilitating this comprehension .The Biomimicry Institute, an American non-profit organisation that seeks to promote biomimicry through communication and networking, has produced ten “Unifying Patterns of Nature”  . This phrasing is problematic because, in science, nature is not a casual factor or active agent with its own inherent self-determination. Rather, it is a series of phenomena, a large system of varied interactions without any individuality, that require interpretation through the process of scientific enquiry. If this were not the case, the entire scientific process would be inconsequential: nature would be considered “omnipotent” on principle and therefore devoid of the need for explanation.Human beings can be susceptible to thinking that there is agency or intention within or beyond nature, a cognitive bias called “hypersensitive agency detection” ,5 or “inBy using nature as a subject in statements about patterns in biology, a “universal provider” or “global causal agent” appears, once again, to be attributed a deterministic role. “God” is simply being replaced by “Nature”. This attribution may be involuntary and solely based on the Biomimicry Institute’s desire to communicate with audiences with non-scientific backgrounds. However, the risk is that this wording perpetuates inaccurate assumptions about the living world.Furthermore, using nature as the subject of sentences reinforces its interpretation as everything that humans themselves have not created, i.e., a concept in opposition to humankind. This “nature-otherness”  is not oown personality traits to nature. Nature is sometimes described as “parsimonious”, “frugal”, “intelligent” or even “rational”, indicating that human beings attribute their own characteristics to the world around them in order to understand both it and themselves. Statements such as nature is “logical” or “rational”  are simConfusion between the properties of the observer (us) and the properties of what is observed (nature) often occurs when communicating about the biological world in order to generate empathy for “nature”. Yet, by saying that “nature is x”, or even by rejecting “x”  through natural selection. Most organisms do not survive this process of natural selection. This explains why only a small number of the eggs or seeds produced by any biological generation will reach their adult stage and why just a fraction of these adults will go on to have offspring.functionality that then acted as a filter by way of natural selection. This is because, in the living world, function  maintains form and drives its evolutionary changes. Note also that the resulting forms have to be incorporated into an existing network of biological trade-offs.We are often oblivious to the huge number of individuals that have died, relegated to an invisible “evolutionary graveyard”; instead, we simply observe those organisms that thrive today . These This is not the way in which humans reason when we design objects. Human beings think purposefully and use shape to achieve desired functions. We also tend to minimise the number of design iterations necessary to achieve our goal, and seek to create the best result as quickly as possible. As such, most of us are reluctant to accept that the congruence we observe between form and function in nature was never anticipated. We inevitably transfer our “cognitive reflexes” to the living world, unwittingly believing that “nature” preemptively “designs” shapes to optimise particular functions, as we do.Bioinspiration, a domain that exists at the intersection of biology and design, is particularly susceptible to these ambiguities. Yet, it also holds the potential to improve biological understanding amongst a wide range of stakeholders. We believe this comprehension is fundamental to bioinspiration’s long-term success: bioinspired designers and engineers can only benefit from understanding evolution and the key principles of biology as a science. By truly grasping how nature operates, flaws and miscalculations are more likely to be avoided in the development of bioinspired processes, products, and systems.Another aspect that could cause confusion amongst the Biomimicry Institute’s audience is the use of the term “pattern” to describe universal arrangements found in the natural world. The Biomimicry Institute employs the term pattern in the sense of “principles that guide biological systems’ functioning”. Unifying concepts, such as evolutionary theory, do, of course, exist in biology and are fundamental to its understanding (as explained in this article). However, the word pattern is more commonly taken to mean “regularity in a combination of structures” or the way in which a formation is repeated in a regular way. Thus, the reference to “patterns” in the natural world can lead us to visualise a zebra’s stripes, the hexagons of a honeycomb, or even features  present in multiple species.regularities) found in nature are underpinned not just by biology, but also by mathematical and physical principles. This is the case for both nature’s living and non-living elements; for example, one might observe the similarity between the branching formation of a river and the branching veins of a leaf. These natural regularities were first brought to public attention by D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson in 1917 [“restrict the options for adaptive change and to offer new adaptive opportunities”. Thus, they do not replace biological principles, but rather work alongside them; the resulting shapes  are a complex medley of math, physics, chemistry, and biology operating in parallel.Patterns  and growing materials that make up their bodies and homes. Organisms use low-energy processes to reduce the amount of energy they need. Those processes usually involve self-assembly, building from the bottom-up , using modular or nested structures, building at ambient temperatures and pressures, and making use of multi-functional design”.Nature uses only the energy it needs” seems to imply that this is a choice a biological system has made. Rather, the opposite is true: the “energy sobriety” sometimes found in living organisms and ecosystems is a consequence of limited energy availability. It is not possible for any system, and living organisms are no exception, to consume more energy than is available. This is because, in physics, energy is a “conserved quantity”, indicating that it cannot be created, nor even destroyed, but only exchanged or converted into another form (Emmy Noether’s theorem (1918) and Helmholtz’s formulation (1850)).The statement “Within an ecosystem, there are two main ways of acquiring energy: autotrophic and heterotrophic. The autotrophs, or primary producers, use energy either from light (photosynthesis), or from inorganic chemical reactions (chemosynthesis) to make their “food”. In both cases, they convert an abiotic source of energy in their environment into biological components. The heterotrophs cannot produce their own food and therefore obtain energy by consuming other organisms within a trophic network. The higher an organism is in a specific food network , the lower the energy conversion rate from one level to the next.no energy is “free” because all energy requires expenditure of energy to obtain it’. Even the flow of electrons from the sun requires extraction via the presence of photosynthetic capture and conversion surfaces in plants. As with any transformation of matter, these living structures represent an energy cost for construction and maintenance. There is no such thing as a free lunch! The notion of “freely available energy” exploited by nature is therefore rather vague as part of this “pattern of nature”, .At an ecosystem level, this poor “return on investment” at each trophic level is usually balanced through the relative abundance of primary producers and the “low cost” of their energy harvesting/conversion structures (such as leaves and chloroplasts). However, as the Biomimicry Institute correctly states, ‘The level of energy conversion within biological systems also varies according to the level of organisation  in question. While there are many examples of biological systems at all scales exhibiting apparent low levels of energy conversion (“minimising their energy use”), there are also counter-examples that suggest that this “pattern” is not absolute in nature and therefore should not be considered a rule.population level, most species exhibit high levels of energy conversion (“energy expenditure”) producing far more eggs or seeds than the local environment could ever support. For instance, most teleostean fishes lay several hundred thousand eggs, with the maximum reached by the sunfish (300 million eggs), most of which die prematurely. Not all eggs or seeds become adult organisms, whatever the embodied energy in each, either because of abnormal development or because of predation. This is one of the key tenets of Darwin’s reasoning: random variations within growing populations of organisms are “filtered” by environmental parameters, both biotic and abiotic. Organisms respond to this by expending considerable amounts of energy in order to counterbalance the inevitable losses of eggs and juveniles.For example, at the The energy “expenditure” involved in reproduction is not always obvious, particularly in terms of individuals lost because of abnormal developments. These abnormalities occur because development is not so much the unfolding of a genetic “programme” (as we might imagine ), but raappropriate amount of energy to ensure the production of the next generation, given high levels of predation and abnormal development? Unfortunately, no objective test can ascertain this: there is no experimental design to evaluate whether sunfish females could lay more eggs or not. In any case, behind this apparent “optimisation” lies the invisible demise of millions of individuals. Once again, the statement “Nature uses only the energy it needs” is problematic because it implies some sort of conscious target within living systems.Do species expend an Organisms use low-energy processes to reduce the amount of energy they need”. However, even at the organism level, there are examples where energy is converted into developing forms that appear to serve little purpose or even lead to “unnecessary” energy expenditure. For example, the human tail develops nine vertebrae, of which four degenerate in the womb; the five others become the vestigial coccyx. Similarly, the giraffe’s left recurrent laryngeal nerve makes a “useless” five-meter-long circuit to reach the larynx, a seemingly extraordinary investment of energy for little gain. The same circuit was estimated to be 28 m long in the sauropod Supersaurus [Furthermore, deciding whether “nature” is wasting or saving energy depends on what we are evaluating: evolutionary processes or their results. At the scale of egg production, energy is undoubtedly “lost” for the species in question, but organisms that thrive  are those that (to some extent) minimise energy conversion. In other words, evolutionary processes “demand” an extravagant expenditure of energy but result in biological systems that use the least energy possible . In this sense, the Biomimicry Institute is partially correct in stating that “ersaurus .These structures would never have been “designed” with efficiency in mind; they result simply from the fact that each organism carries within them the evolutionary stages through which their ancestors passed. This “evolutionary burden” or “phylogenetic heritage” cannot be avoided within the living world and needs to be understood if biological systems are to be effectively transposed to bioinspired innovation. This is because understanding a biological system in its entirety can lead to different decisions being taken during the design process. Certain structures may need to be retained (to ensure the efficient functioning of the bioinspired product or system); others may need to be abandoned as they do not serve a purpose in a human-designed output.Pattern 1 could be reformulated as: In terms of reproduction, both internal and external constraints can lead to higher energy expenditure than might be inferred from observation of adult populations. Evolutionary processes require considerable amounts of energy—either from the organism’s point of view (number of gametes produced) or from the population’s (number of deaths). However, natural selection seems to ultimately favour physiological systems that minimise energy expenditure.Pattern 2. “Nature recycles all materials”In nature, one organism’s waste or decomposing body becomes a source of food and materials for other organisms. While we talk about “recycling,” “upcycling” is a more accurate description of what happens in nature. There are usually many organisms, or more accurately, ecosystems of organisms, that break down complex organic materials and molecules into smaller molecules that can then be taken up and reassembled into completely new materials. Just as there is a hydrological cycle, there are many other cycles involving organic matter  that function as local, regional, and whole-earth systems”.“living organisms , its capacity to recycle has certain limitations. Indeed, the idea of “no waste” in nature has already been identified as a misconception by Shyam et al. [This statement could be considered legitimate if we consider “nature” to be all organic and inorganic matter over indefinite timescales . Yet ifm et al. . Here, wDuring the “Great Oxygenation Event” 2.4 billion years ago, cyanobacteria proliferated, producing huge quantities of oxygen that reached toxic levels for multiple organisms. This led to the extinction of many anaerobic species at the time. “Nature” was not able to recycle one of its outputs, and it took millions of years for living organisms to adapt and benefit from this modified environment. Similarly, the super greenhouse climate of the early Triassic was driven by vegetation collapse after the volcanic events of the Permian–Triassic Mass Extinction: plants did not sequester organic carbon, and carbon dioxide was not “recycled”. This led to increased levels of greenhouse gases and a prolonged period of extremely high surface temperatures, which delayed biotic recovery . FurtherUltimately, “recycling” is a matter of time scale. Earth’s living systems cycles are generally much longer than those that characterise human activities. Since the Industrial Revolution, access to stored energy in the form of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to develop infrastructure and products faster than ever before. However, nature’s capacity to recycle the “waste” associated with this modernization  is not in line with humanity’s timescales, threatening the resilience of ecosystems on which humans depend. Remembering this variable of time and recognising the finite character of our planet are two sides of the same coin.Interestingly, a different kind of “recycling” occurs during the course of evolution: not of matter but of shape. A biological structure can gain supplementary functions without changing its form. For instance, human beings’ opposable thumbs appeared at the origin of primates  more than 60 million years ago. These opposable thumbs were used to grasp branches . Today we use these opposable thumbs for hitchhiking and for indicating agreement/well-being, a new signalling function. The same phenomenon occurred with feathers. Feathers first appeared in dinosaurs, where their primary functions were insulation as well as body protection and display. Over time, their presence gave certain species an evolutionary advantage , and feathers used for flight appeared .Different parts of biological features can also be “recycled” to fulfil a variety of functions. For instance, in Antarctic teleostean fishes (notothenioids), the pancreatic trypsinogen-like serine protease gene is used by the liver to deliver antifreeze proteins to the blood. Similarly, in eelpouts, the sialic acid synthase gene is employed for adaptation to cold Antarctic waters . This abPattern 2 could be reformulated as: The living world has an extraordinary  capacity to recycle organic material. In any given ecosystem, a diversity of organisms reuse, scavenge, or decompose matter into components taken up by other forms of life. However, “recycling” can take millions of years, and some organic materials have never been “recycled” at all.Pattern 3. “Nature is resilient to disturbances”Being resilient is about having the ability to recover after disturbances or significant, unpredictable changes in the local environment, such as those caused by a fire, flood, blizzard, or injury. Diversity, redundancy, decentralization, self-renewal, and self-repair can all enable resiliency in nature and the ability to maintain function despite a disturbance. At a systems level, “diversity” refers to the presence of multiple forms, processes, or systems that meet a functional need. Diversity can include a variety of behavioral, physical, or physiological responses to a change in the environment. “Redundancy” means that there’s more than one representative system, organism, or species that provides each function, and that there’s overlap so the loss of or decline in one representative doesn’t destroy the whole system. “Decentralization” means that the mechanisms maintaining those functions are scattered throughout the system, not located exclusively together, so that a localized disturbance doesn’t remove one or more vital parts of the whole system. “Self-renewal” and “self-repair” are terms that are more often applied at the cellular or organismal level, but self-renewal can also be applied in ecological contexts. For the former, the terms mean that organisms have the capacity to generate new cells, heal wounds and damaged organs, respond to bacterial and viral threats, and more”.“These statements hold true in many contexts. Biodiverse, healthy ecosystems are more resilient to disease, predation, or environmental change than a monoculture, for example. This is because functional redundancy has probably been favoured  as a form of resistance to structural alterations at several biological scales . The divIn terms of self-repair, the ability to heal is a characteristic of all multicellular organisms. There are many different self-repair mechanisms in the living world, for example, lianas being able to seal lesions quickly to maintain functional integrity  . Ecosystems also collapse, sometimes irreversibly. For example, faced with chronic anthropogenic pressures, tropical reefs change from coral-dominant to macro-algae-dominant systems, making recovery difficult, if not impossible. Likewise, scientific models predict large-scale ecosystem collapse this century: the Amazon basin, Congo Basin, and Gobi Desert by 2050, and the Coral Triangle by 2060 [Crucially, all these mechanisms confer resilience on living systems  by 2060  due to uThese issues are of particular relevance to the bioinspiration domain because of its capacity to contribute to regenerative development and biodiversity conservation. While life as a whole may not be fragile, the ecosystem services on which humanity depends are increasingly so. Bioinspired designers need to understand biological resilience in order to effectively transpose this quality to human systems and technologies. Reasons and timescales for resilience are too diverse to be reduced to a simple property of “nature”. Rather, the designer needs to identify the dominant factor(s) providing resilience in a particular context  as well as the time periods over which it/they operate(s). Only then can they evaluate whether transposing a biological model to a human system is likely to provide the expected resilience. Additionally, this should be performed with the acknowledgement that no living system is infallible!Finally, resilience is neither a choice nor a designed property but the necessary result of an evolutionary trade-off, which itself governs most developments in the living world. “Good enough’ seems to be the hallmark of evolution , althougPattern 3 could be reformulated as: Ecosystems and biological entities are resilient to disturbances within certain limits. At the ecosystem level, once certain disturbance thresholds are crossed, the “identity” of the ecosystem may be changed irreversibly.Pattern 4. “Nature tends to optimise rather than maximise”Because energy and materials are so precious, nature seeks a balance between resources taken in and resources expended. Energy spent on excess growth, for example, could result in insufficient energy reserves or characteristics that harm an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce, which means that it won’t be able to pass on its genes. There are checks and balances in both organisms and ecosystems, some of which occur over generations. Growth for growth’s sake will result in harmful side effects. Sometimes these side effects are immediately apparent and possibly reversible, and sometimes they remain hidden for a long time until reversal is too late”.“This pattern, as written by the Biomimicry Institute, uses vocabulary typically associated with the field of systems engineering, a domain that studies the design, integration, and management of complex human-made systems. The wording is not neutral but rather anthropomorphic, conferring the principles of non-living systems onto natural systems.Living systems do not “maximise”: the “maximum power principle” proposed by Odum and Pinkerton , based oThat being said, checks and balances do seem to occur in nature. Yet, these are regulated more by trade-offs than optimisations at both population and organismal scales , generatpopulation level, according to evolutionary reasoning, species maintain their lineage through time because they tend to produce a large number of offspring. Most species multiply constantly and seem to produce as many offspring as possible, leading to an apparent “maximisation”. We often forget this because of death rates induced by (i) resource limitations, (ii) competition, and (iii) predation/parasitism or because of migration. However, populations of organisms can proliferate uncontrollably under some circumstances. One example of this is the introduction of non-native species into new territories. Rabbit introductions in Australia or in the Kerguelen Islands are well-known case studies, and similar events are increasingly common internationally. So-called “invasive species” can cause significant ecological damage, such as the northern Pacific seastar in Tasmania or the geoplanid flatworms from New Zealand and South America invading Europe.At a species level, the notion of trade-off is also key. Every organism has a range of physical and biochemical mechanisms that can be brought into play when necessary: that is how they survive. They may even shut down completely until better conditions prevail. Yet no species is perfectly adapted in relation to a single structure or function; rather, natural selection generates a series of biological outcomes that can counteract each other. Indeed, a system, whatever it may be, cannot be both adapted to a particular function and to a multitude of functions. Living organisms are no exception to this thermodynamic law; their overall adaptability depends on the constitution of their systems into adapted subsystems.At the There are thus trade-offs associated with finding a balance between the different functions necessary for survival. In evolutionary terms, the increased fitness (or function) of one trait is often reached at the expense of another. Within an individual, any two traits depend on resources from a common, limited pool: investment in one area means less investment elsewhere. Following this model, even the apparent “maximisation” of offspring mentioned above is part of a trade-off. For example, the larger a male howler monkey’s vocal organ , the smaller their testes and the less sperm they can produce . MoreoveWhy is this relevant to bioinspiration? Because human innovation is often underpinned by the same trade-offs that are found in the natural world. This can provide important lessons in terms of how maximising one function  can diminish another . Even so, human innovation is not necessarily bound to the same constraints as living systems. Bioinspired products and processes can be designed with the optimisation of a single function in mind, often without the need to manage trade-offs across a range of functions required for survival or being obliged to carry the “phylogenetic heritage” of forebearers (see Pattern 1). Furthermore, bioinspired design can pull different ideas from a range of biological systems at varying scales, creating a mosaic “solution” that does not have to resemble a single living entity.Pattern 4 could be reformulated as: Living systems are the result of trade-offs, not optimisation. Populations seem to ‘maximise’ reproduction and offspring, which are later filtered by environmental constraints (biotic and abiotic). Apparent optimisations in terms of species’ physical and behavioural traits would be more accurately described as being the ‘best under the circumstances’.Pattern 5. “Nature provides mutual benefits”Among the variety of ways that organisms interact with each other, there are many examples of interactions that provide mutual benefits. The benefits may be simple byproducts of specific behaviors—for example, when one organism’s waste is another organism’s resource—or they may arise out of close relationships that evolved over time. Mutualistic symbioses are one example of a close relationship between different kinds of organisms, where all the partners benefit from the relationship. Another kind of close relationship includes cooperation among members of a family group. Even interactions that normally harm an organism, like predation or parasitism, can include benefits when viewed at a different level. For instance, a male praying mantis might be eaten by his female mate after mating, providing beneficial nutrition to the female that will eventually bear his offspring”.“It is correct to say that there are a multitude of ways in which organisms interact with each other. It is also true to say that natural selection can lead to different forms of cooperation. Nowak  identifiMutualistic symbiosis or mutualism  explains most of the very spectacular “innovations” in living systems. Examples include symbiogenesis, which explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic organisms (but not only ), or theall existing species. The same is true for bacteria. Interestingly, bacteria’s long history of predation and parasitism has, in some cases, evolved to form symbioses. For example, most multicellular organisms have bacterial ecosystems in their digestive tracts that provide benefits to the host and the bacteria themselves. Yet, these relationships undoubtedly started as parasitism.Aside from (most) green plants, all organisms—even unicellular ones—are predators, and most of them are prey as well (except a very limited number of ‘top predators”). Moreover, no organism escapes parasitism. Even bacteria have parasites in the form of viruses. Viruses have been on earth for so long that they manage to exploit We tend to forget that all living species have parasites given the last hundred years of “sanitary paradise”, relative to the rest of human history. Some three centuries ago, human beings regularly had to deal with fleas, lice, plagues, cholera, etc. Even today, the main cause of human mortality in tropical areas are diseases caused by parasites .This does not mean that bioinspired designers are required to give equal weight to parasitism and predation in their work. Certainly, developing bioinspired innovation based around mutual benefits and collaboration is a positive approach and one to be encouraged.Pattern 5 could be reformulated as: Mutually beneficial relationships are found in living systems, yet they are not necessarily more significant than predation and parasitism.Pattern 6. “Nature runs on information”To be attuned to their environment, organisms and ecosystems need to receive information from the environment and be able to act appropriately in response to that information. This includes sending and receiving signals to and from other organisms or even within the body of an organism. This system of send, receive, and respond has been finely tuned through millions of years of evolution. Some living systems work within narrow ranges of optimal conditions, so they need to constantly monitor their environment and respond. Others have broader ranges, but still need to be able to detect and respond when conditions are such that they approach their limits . Using feedback loops is one way to monitor those conditions. Both negative feedback loops (those that slow down a process), and positive feedback loops (those that speed up a process) are important in natural systems”.“vary according to its means of communication. For example, the same information can be contained in an enunciated, emotive speech and its transcript, despite these mediums being very different .Receiving, responding to, and sending signals are indeed central elements of the living world. However, care needs to be taken in how we use the word “information”. Information is essentially processed and organised data and is defined by the fact that it does not Importing the notion of “information” into biology has been intensely debated by scientists ,47,48,49Broadly speaking, notions referring to unchanging entities (invariants), such as information, are not considered integral to biology; rather, biologists note the random variation of living things and their properties. Of course, the field of biology itself is structured and organised: when a biological entity or process needs to be named, biologists use language conventions like character homologies, taxon names, or metaphors. They develop terms that they then associate with concepts in a nominalistic way in order to designate sets of varying material entities in the living world. However, unlike during the time of Linnaeus, these entities are no longer terminological “prisoners” in the sense that their variations are not negated; rather, concepts and names are challenged and adjusted according to advances in science.In summary, from a philosophical and terminological perspective, this “pattern”, as currently worded, is somewhat flawed. This is not to say that the intention behind it is incorrect. Living systems do indeed sense and respond to both their internal environment (integration) and external environment; organisms do communicate in a multitude of different ways with each other and other species, allowing reproduction and survival. The type of perception and communication depends on the species in question (and their associated sensing characteristics). While biologists may not describe this sensing and communication as the acquisition and transmission of “information” it is indeed an essential element of the living world, without which biological systems could not function. These capacities have already inspired biomimetic innovation and will no doubt continue to do so.Pattern 6 could be reformulated as: Living systems sense and respond to their internal/external environments and communicate in a multitude of different ways .Pattern 7. “Nature uses chemistry and materials that are safe for living beings”Organisms do chemistry within and near their own cells. This makes it imperative that organisms use chemicals, chemical processes, and chemistry-derived materials that are supportive to life’s processes. Life’s chemistry is water-based and uses a subset of chemical elements configured into precise 3D structures. The combination of 3D architecture and composition is the key to maximising self-assembly, guiding chemical activity and material performance, and allowing for biodegradation into useful constituents when their work is done. With regard to our production systems, the importance of using life-friendly chemistry and materials is applicable at various system scales, from sourcing or growing of materials, to manufacturing products or goods, transporting those goods, and considering what happens to them at the end of their life cycle”.“There is some truth in this “pattern”, though once again it is context-dependent. Whether chemistry and materials are “safe” or “dangerous” depends on the species in question, their life history stage, their environmental context, and, last but not least, the quantity of the chemical compound in question. Taking this “unifying pattern” at face value implies one could eat any amount of anything growing in the wild under the assumption that it would be “supportive to life’s processes”!Plants synthesise or concentrate hundreds of toxic  compounds to protect themselves from other plants or animal predators. For instance, 10,000 to 12,000 plant species are recorded as being toxic to humans. Some insects even ingest plant toxins  and store them within their own bodies to protect themselves from being eaten . Evident2 levels at 30%, we would suffer serious headaches! The same applies to many compounds vital for human health in small amounts (such as Vitamin A), yet dangerous in excess.The amount of a given substance is also relevant. Humans need oxygen, but above a certain concentration, it becomes neurotoxic. If we were transported back to the carboniferous period with its 02, water, and minerals. That is to say, organic matter biodegrades into “safe” constituents under the right circumstances (see Pattern 2). Human beings, on the other hand, have created materials that act in opposition to “life’s processes” over longer time scales. Whilst modern man-made non-organic material can also biodegrade, this often takes much longer: an aluminium can, for example, is estimated to take 100–200 years to biodegrade, compared to 1 month for a vegetable. At current rates, this anthropogenic waste is accumulating faster than it can biodegrade, threatening biodiversity’s ability to provide vital ecosystem services. More troubling are synthetic compounds known as Persistent Organic Pollutants  that resist biodegradation and bioaccumulate in the food chain, reaching dangerous levels of concentration . The bioinspired designer could seek to develop innovative materials that biodegrade over timeframes in line with human lifespans  and/or those that can be efficiently recycled without wider chemical contamination.With these caveats in mind, what can be usefully retained from this “pattern” for a bioinspired designer? At a macroscale, given enough time and appropriate conditions, almost all organic matter can indeed be broken down by microorganisms (such as bacteria and fungi) into COPattern 7 could be reformulated as: Whether the chemicals and materials synthesised within biological systems are “safe” depends on the species in question, their life history stage, their environmental context, and, last but not least, the quantity of the chemical compound in question. Nevertheless, almost all are ultimately biodegradable, given sufficient time and the right environmental conditions.Pattern 8. “Nature builds using abundant resources, incorporating rare resources only sparingly”Nature’s materials are abundant and locally sourced. This is true whether an organism is building something external to itself, like a termite mound or a nest, or assembling materials that are part of the body, e.g., a wing, shell, leaf, or horn. The most common and abundant basic building blocks—chemical compounds—are those that are formed from the most common and readily found elements on earth: carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. A few rarer minerals are also used, but these are found locally and are readily available, not mined, processed, or shipped thousands of miles. Waste is eliminated through additive manufacturing and by building processes around readily available and low-cost sources of materials and energy”.“There is much to agree with in this “pattern”: living systems do indeed build materials principally from abundant elements. Calcifying organisms, such as echinoderms, molluscs, and corals, produce shells and skeletons composed principally of calcium carbonate. Similarly, diatoms, a group of microalgae that constitute almost half of all oceanic organic material, have cell walls made of silica. It is true to say that these minerals are locally abundant.inevitably obliged to use that resource sparingly. It is simply not possible to incorporate a great deal of a rare resource (at least not without human technology). At the scale of an organism, if a certain resource is required but not readily available, the organism is not able to survive.However, this pattern’s wording reveals a circular argument: if a resource is rare and if “nature” is considered to be all organic matter (at different levels of organisation) , then “nWith regard to waste, not all is “eliminated”. Living systems (over their 3.7 billion years of evolution) have had episodes of producing “waste” that could not be assimilated locally, leading to death and extinctions . At a species level, some organisms accumulate minerals that appear to be “wasted” when they die. For example, tunicates concentrate rare metals, such as Vanadium , in theiOnce again, our explanations are not intended to imply that frugality is an invalid concept in the context of sustainable design. Using abundant, locally sourced resources in an efficient way and minimising waste are all excellent principles to follow in the pursuit of environmentally friendly innovation.Pattern 8 could be reformulated as: Most biological materials are inevitably composed of abundant, locally available resources.Pattern 9. “Nature is locally attuned and responsive”Chances of survival increase when individuals are good at recognizing local conditions and opportunities and locating and managing available resources. Survival also depends on responding appropriately to information garnered from the local environment. Organisms and ecosystems that are present in a location evolved in direct response to local environmental conditions. Some of those environmental conditions change in a cyclic pattern, such as tides, day and night, seasons, and annual floods or fires. Organisms use those predictable cyclic patterns as an opportunity, evolving to fill a particular niche. Within a particular location, there are micro-environments, such as a low spot that is moister than the surrounding area or an area that experiences more wind than others. These also provide opportunities for organisms to have an advantage over others and thrive. Some environmental conditions change slowly over time as the climate changes or as the organisms and ecosystems influence the local conditions. Being able to respond to these changes, again using them as opportunities, allows organisms and ecosystems to flourish”.“Living systems certainly respond to their surrounding environment, both biotic and abiotic. However, this “pattern” appears to confuse three different processes: responsiveness, acclimatisation , and adaptation .Responsiveness is an organism’s capacity to adjust to internal and external stimuli. For example, animals move away from fire; many plants turn towards the sun; and single-celled organisms may migrate towards a nutrient source or away from a harmful chemical. Responsiveness is a trait common to all living organisms because those with lower or no responsiveness died.Acclimatisation  refers to changes that occur during an individual organism’s lifetime to improve its survival and/or reproduction in response to new environmental conditions. These changes can be transient and reversible and relate to an organism’s behaviour, morphology, or physiology. For example, some mammals grow thicker fur in the winter to protect them from the cold.Adaptation involves changes  that occur over many generations at the level of populations. It is the way in which a population of organisms stabilises a trait under a given set of environmental conditions. Adaptation usually refers to hereditary traits that have evolved through natural selection. An example of adaptation would be a fire-tolerant plant that has evolved to live in a fire-prone Mediterranean climate.individual organisms can be responsive and able to acclimatise, they are ultimately steered by stronger evolutionary constraints at a population scale: certain traits are selectively filtered over each generation. Overall, adaptation is the result of (i) environmental conditions, (ii) advantageous/disadvantageous hereditary traits that exist within a population, and (iii) historical constraints (phylogenetic heritage). Adaptation at the population scale is the byproduct of an “invisible cemetery” from an evolutionary point of view; it is not a possibility that can be pursued at the level of an individual organism.While Nevertheless, much can be learned from individual living systems’ ability to respond and acclimatise to new conditions. Indeed, the capacity to respond to change and identify unexplored niches in different fields of innovation is essential for a bioinspired designer.Pattern 9 could be reformulated as: Individual organisms are responsive and often able to acclimatise to new environmental conditions. At the population level, organisms continually adapt to their surroundings through natural selection.Pattern 10. “Nature uses shape to determine functionality”Nature uses shape or form, rather than added material and energy, to meet functional requirements. This allows the organism to accomplish what it needs to do using a minimum of resources. Forms can be found in the shape of a beetle’s back and in the multi-layer structure of a tropical rainforest. If we notice a form in nature, with very rare exceptions, there’s almost always a functional reason behind that form”.“microstructural diversity that underpins the very different properties of biological materials and their multi-functionality. For example, compare the flexible suckers of an octopus with the hydrophobic carapace of the Namib Desert beetle or even the iridescent wings of blue Morpho butterflies: it is the structural properties of their biological materials  that deliver their very different functionality. These nano/microstructural properties are of great interest to bioinspired material engineers.It is accurate to say that structural complexity (“shape”) is behind the vast array of multi-functional biological materials found in nature. Most biological materials are composed principally of a limited number of elements that are brought together to form a few base compounds  . With liOrconectes australis), eyeless spiders , eyeless fishes , eyeless amphibians , several distinct lineages of eyeless amphipods (Niphargus spp.), etc.However, care must be taken in how we attribute living systems’ functionality to their shape. As already discussed, humans use form to determine functionality because we consciously anticipate the purpose of the tool we need and then shape it accordingly. In nature, it is functionality that determines form; function is the operative condition via which certain forms thrive (or disappear) in response to environmental conditions. A purposeless form that appeared at random through genetic mutation is passed down to following generations only if that form offers some (even slightly) advantageous functionality. Where there is no useful function, a particular form will disappear. In caves, for example, visual functions are useless. This means that having a nervous system responsive to photons (light) is no longer relevant to survival. As a consequence, random alterations within visual systems cease to be disadvantageous. These changes accumulate over generations until eyes are lost entirely. This explains why cave ecosystems contain eyeless crayfishes . The term “autopoiesis” comes from the words “auto-” meaning “itself” and “-poiesis” meaning “creation”. Autopoiesis is based on the theory that living systems consist of a network of processes  that create and regenerate themselves . More spSelf-development (and self-maintenance): aside from obtaining nutrients and expelling waste, living systems autonomously maintain and restore their own structural integrity insofar as is possible .Emergence and non-localisation: living organisms are not defined by their units  but rather by the properties that emerge from interactions between these units at every level of biological complexity.Interaction with the environment: Boundaries (such as a cell membrane or skin) must allow exchanges of matter/energy/sensation in the form of inputs, allowing internal metabolic processes to take place. They must also allow outputs into the supersystems (or environment) that host these organisms .consequence of their ability to export entropy  into their ecosystem. That is to say, living systems create structure at their individual scale by “getting rid of” energy/matter in various forms. In doing so, the wider environment is modified. The more complex the internal organisation, the greater the organism’s outputs, and the more significant the external alteration.Organisms are thermodynamically open , meaning that they are in non-equilibrium and constantly exchanging matter and energy with their surrounding environment . Indeed,At the ecosystem level, mechanisms have emerged for mitigating against these destructive “entropic effects” generated by organisms. These include circular flows of matter and energy, their redistribution via food webs, the use of elements easily (re)incorporated into living organisms , and functional diversity providing ecosystem resilience.What relevance does this have to bioinspiration? Bioinspired designers need to understand that their “biological muses” are the result of self-organised processes connected to their wider environment (being changed by it and changing it in return). Taking an organism out of context in the design process can affect the success of the product or process it inspired. Designers also need to reflect on the “optimal rate” of entropy in order to ensure a bioinspired innovation is as sustainable as possible in a given environment.are organised in the sense that they contain specialised, coordinated, and nested parts, and organisms are made up of cells  in autopoeitic systems.Looking at the natural world, a designer may be struck by certain regularities, common forms, and the appearance of organisation. Indeed, biological systems random variation  and history (see Principle 3 below). While physics works with universals  and laws, biology works with particulars  and principles. Biology seeks to explain, through these principles, how biological organisation arises from unstructured phenomena at a range of different scales.These observations may lead the designer to think that living systems are governed by laws, such as in physics. Yet, while all entities are bound by physical laws, physics alone cannot explain biological systems. This is because biology is a science underpinned by The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life”. The words “evolution”, “transformation” or “transmutation” are notably absent. Rather, the word “preservation” is used to convey the maintenance of a short-term status quo.One of biology’s guiding principles is natural selection . In his Obviously, if an environment changes over time, the average form of a species within that environment will change in response. Nevertheless, natural selection contributes to the apparent stability, similarity, or regularity across individual organisms of the same species. Darwin’s genius was to demonstrate, for the first time since Maupertuis in 1751 , how bioNatural selection does not operate in a vacuum to produce “perfectly adapted” organisms ready for the bioinspired designer to imitate; rather, it has to work within historical constraints associated with species’ evolutionary trajectories ,71,72. OHomo sapiens. Our bipedal skeleton (with a forward-tilting pelvis) and our comparatively large skulls make the exercise painful, even deadly. This arrangement is the result of historical constraints: when our hominoid ancestors started walking upright (restricting their pelvic structures), head size was not an issue. However, some two million years ago, Homo brains tripled in volume. Meanwhile, birth canals did not change significantly, leaving them inherently “unadapted” to birthing large-brained offspring. Functional explanations from physics and physiology are insufficient to explain why a human being is shaped as it is. Evolutionary history is also needed.For example, if one were to design an organism well adapted to childbirth, it would not be Similarly, the “strange” structure of the heart’s aortic arch, the “absurd” connection between the optic nerve and retina in vertebrates, or the three seemingly useless muscles of humans’ outer ear: these peculiarities can only be explained as a consequence of organisms existing “downstream” of a given evolutionary line. The same applies to certain responses; for example, humans getting “goose bumps” when cold is simply a remnant of our mammalian fur function that is of no use today; equally, the grasping reflex of a newborn baby is a useless leftover from our primate past. These traits were certainly not “designed” with efficiency in mind; it is only phylogenetic heritage that accounts for them . An orgaA note of caution: sometimes very similar structures are found in two distinct phylogenetic groups. One example is the hydrodynamic form characteristic of both sharks and dolphins. This phenomenon is confusingly referred to as “convergent evolution”, but this term is misleading. Comparable physical, chemical, and environmental constraints have, through natural selection, shaped two distinct lineages of organisms independently of each other in a way that appears similar to us at our scale of observation. However, all living organisms being unique, evolution is “convergent” only in the fact that we name these structures the same way. There is no specific evolutionary process beyond this.Living organisms undergo regulated growth. Individual cells grow larger, and muticellular organisms accumulate many cells through cell division. Life also depends on a large number of interconnected chemical reactions inside these cells, known collectively as metabolism. Metabolism enables organisms to move or catch prey, to convert energy from one form to another, and to grow, reproduce, and maintain their physical structure. Metabolism functions because organisms regulate their internal environment to maintain a narrow range of conditions, even in the face of external change. This is called homeostasis.Why are these concepts of growth, metabolism, and homeostasis relevant to a bioinspired designer? Firstly, because these “life traits” can inspire new products and processes outside the traditional engineering/design frameworks. For example, plant growth (and changes that occur during the growth process) have inspired dynamic biomimetic building construction . Similarbecause they are alive; their living traits cannot be entirely transposed to technology . In this context, designers may seek to integrate biological entities directly into the design process (as is the case in biodesign/bioassistance) rather than trying to create artificial replicas.However, perhaps more importantly, these characteristics determine how designers can appropriate biological “solutions” and apply them to their technical challenges. On the one hand, artificial structures do not have to achieve homeostasis, metabolise, or grow, thus “freeing” the design process from these biological constraints. On the other hand, some biological systems only succeed Another basic principle of life, as observed by Darwin, is reproduction. Living things multiply to create new organisms. Reproduction can be either asexual, involving a single organism, or sexual, requiring two parents. Single-celled organisms reproduce simply by dividing into two. The genealogical lineages of organisms today exist because their ancestors directed energy towards producing offspring. At the species level, each generation produces more offspring than the local resources can support. Those that did not went extinct.Reproduction is curtailed by certain external limits, both biotic  and abiotic . These limits are precisely why we rarely see sudden proliferations of individual species within natural, “healthy” ecosystems. It is only when this balance is disrupted, for example, when invasive species are introduced into new habitats, that such extreme population expansion occurs (see revised “Pattern 4”). This continues until new complex equilibria among species are eventually established (which may take centuries). The take-home message for bioinspired designers is that certain limits structure all populations through selective constraints. There is no “unlimited” world where unfettered growth (human or otherwise) can continue indefinitely.One basic property of biological entities is their capacity for transmission at all scales of organisation. Genetic transmission is well known: bacteria transmit their genetic variations through division; somatic cells transmit their genetic material through mitosis ; and through meiosis and fertilisation, most multicellular organisms “mix” male and female genes for transmission to the next generation .However, the term transmission should not imply that genetic material is simply a set of “instructions” to be followed (as the misleading and now obsolete “genetic program” metaphor suggests) ,14,23,78Moreover, transmission is not limited to genes. For example, at the nanoscale, normal prion proteins’ tridimensional shape can be altered via contact with abnormal, pathogenic prions (causing neurodegenerative disorders). Organisms can also transmit epigenetic states, egg cytoplasm, symbionts, behaviours, techniques, cultures, and ecological niches  fImmortality is not a biological property, as much as it may intrigue humanity. Although it could seem counterintuitive, death is essential for the continuation of a biological lineage in the face of environmental change. This is because death allows individual organisms to be replaced within a population. This makes way for other individuals with different traits, as well as “rearranging” variations within a population. It is this continual influx of variation that allows a lineage to adapt to unpredictable abiotic and biotic challenges.Death is therefore a part of life, a precursor to the variation biological systems need to adapt and survive in the long term. Human beings are not accustomed to this concept of mortality, which we tend to experience as an individual-centred occurrence. This presents a challenge for bioinspiration with its design-oriented optimisation approach. It can be difficult for a designer to understand that the process that gave birth to “interesting design solutions” occurred purposelessly at a population level simply due to random variations and a great deal of death. It is only through acknowledging the mortality of individuals that did not succeed that we can explain the apparent “optimisation” of the living world without the role of an omnipotent designer.functionality and the apparent congruence between function and form. This process also leads to similarity among individuals of the same species.Variation, transmission, and environmental constraints lead to the phenomenon of natural selection  and then adaptation. As we have seen, this mechanism is at the origin of biological Environmental constraints (both biotic and abiotic) drive natural selection . We canWhy is this eighth principle important? Without an understanding of evolution, a bioinspired designer might isolate a certain anatomical structure and seek to transpose it to technology, ignoring the constraints that drove the structure’s existence. They might try to replicate an optimisation that does not actually exist or fail to integrate parts of the structure that are essential for its operation.Megarhyssa nortoni nortoni is essentially a thin, stiff, and strong drill. It can withstand high forces and penetrate wood in a curved fashion. These traits inspired the design of an innovative intracranial endoscope [For example, the ovipositor of the wood wasp ndoscope ,89. The a priori, fully apprehend or understand simply by analysing today’s environment. In this sense, palaeontology could become a powerful ally in improving bioinspired design.Removing the biological “solution” from its broader biotic and abiotic  context may be inevitable in design, but it should always be pursued with awareness of the evolutionary context, difficult though that may be. This is challenging because, along the evolutionary pathway that led to a specific organism in the here and now, previous generations will have responded to conditions that we cannot, The way biologists understand life is diametrically opposed to the way designers and engineers create. This is why teaching evolution correctly is challenging . Life isNonetheless, being inspired by the natural world’s forms, processes, and systems is an effective way to innovate sustainably. It is also a compelling means to get people interested in biology, biodiversity, and its preservation. The fact that biological principles are different from the way humans design need not be an obstacle to bioinspiration. However, if bioinspiration is to be practised lucidly, scientific explanations of why structures or processes exist in the natural world must be prioritised. We understand that metaphors may be useful intellectual stepping stones towards more scientifically complex concepts, and we appreciate that this is the likely intention of the Biomimicry Institute’s “Ten Unifying Patterns of Nature”. Nonetheless, we need to be wary of misleading bioinspiration professionals (and the public) with ambiguous statements about “Nature”.The overriding message of this paper is that bioinspiration does not require the personification of “Nature” or the projection of our own cognitive processes onto a “reified” vision of the living world. We hope our suggested revisions of life’s “Patterns” retain their ability to communicate and inspire without perpetuating inaccurate notions about life on earth. We believe that understanding biological principles and working with biologists will make for better bioinspiration practices; an “enlightened” bioinspiration that respects the theory of biology will be a valuable long-term investment in the field.


Recognizing, as well as reducing and redistributing women’s care and domestic work (known as the ‘Three Rs’), is an established framework for addressing women’s inequitable unpaid care work. However, the care work of breastfeeding presents a dilemma, and is even a divisive issue, for advocates of women’s empowerment, because reducing breastfeeding and replacing it with commercial milk formula risks harming women’s and children’s health. It is therefore necessary for the interaction between women’s reproductive biology and infant care role to be recognized in order to support women’s human rights and enable governments to implement economic, employment and other policies to empower women. In this paper, we argue that breastfeeding–like childbirth–is reproductive work that should not be reduced and cannot sensibly be directly redistributed to fathers or others. Rather, we contend that the Three Rs agenda should be reconceptualized to isolate breastfeeding as ‘sexed’ care work that should be supported rather than reduced with action taken to avoid undermining breastfeeding. This means that initiatives toward gender equality should be assessed against their impact on women’s ability to breastfeed. With this reconceptualization, adjustments are also needed to key global economic institutions and national statistical systems to appropriately recognize the value of this work. Additional structural supports such as maternity protection and childcare are needed to ensure that childbearing and breastfeeding do not disadvantage women amidst efforts to reduce gender pay gaps and gender economic inequality. Distinct policy interventions are also required to facilitate fathers’ engagement in enabling and supporting breastfeeding through sharing the other unpaid care work associated with parents’ time-consuming care responsibilities, for both infants and young children and related household work.Women’s UndermiReproductive biology, including related to premature cessation of breastfeeding, is also at the center of the high incidence of reproductive cancers experienced by women in high-income countries (HIC) . ResearcThe Three R’s: Recognize, Reduce and Redistribute, form the basis of an influential framework for addressing the disproportionate unpaid care work that hampers women’s equality. The first component, recognize, involves ensuring that care work is valued and appreciated as vital to societal well-being . Once reBreastfeeding poses a challenge to child-care egalitarianism , 38. NatWomen in the paid workforce in Zimbabwe were found to be prevented from breastfeeding on demand  which, dWhile it is established that women’s reproductive rights around pregnancy should be supported, it is often overlooked that breastfeeding is also a part of female reproduction. Lactation begins with the production of colostrum during pregnancy, and onset of copious milk secretion follows the removal of the placenta after birth . BreastfWhile some explicitly position breastfeeding as a barrier to women’s equality , others Availability of paid maternity leave has measurable impacts on breastfeeding rates. Analysis of Demographic Health Survey (DHS) data from 38 low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) found that a 1 month increase in paid maternity leave was associated with a 7.4 percentage point increase in early initiation of breastfeeding, a 5.9 percentage point increase in exclusive breastfeeding of infants 0–5 months, and a 2.2 month increase in average breastfeeding duration . ExpandiPaid maternity leave also protects maternal short- and long-term health. In Australia, the 2011 introduction of 18 weeks paid parental leave improved the short-term mental and physical health of women, especially those in insecure casual employment . In Norwrd diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis vaccination by 2.2 percentage points  . Each wee points . In the e points . Infantse points .Tanaka  than men . The assUse-it-or-lose-it paid paternity leave is commonly advocated for in order to increase gender equality . F matter’ . In Aust matter’ . However matter’ ]. And in matter’ . In thes matter’ . Mothers matter’ . The chi matter’ .Group childcare options such as creches and day care centers, are increasingly presented as a solution to meeting childcare needs and enabling maternal employment. However, it is difficult and expensive to provide the responsive, loving care that infants require in group settings . InfantsThe time mothers invest caring for and breastfeeding their infants is valuable  and consWhile paid maternity leave can support women’s health and breastfeeding rights, not all women have equal access to leave. Globally, informal employment is over 60% and in LMIC this is higher, for example 86% of employment in Africa is in the informal sector . Many inWorkplace arrangements can enable women to more easily combine breastfeeding and employment. This includes via breastfeeding breaks, such as for example in Turkey where women are entitled to 3 h per day of ‘breastfeeding leave’ for the first 6 months and 1.5 h for the second 6 months with night shift work not permitted until the child is 2 years old . BreastfEvidence of a recent global systematic review of breastfeeding interventions in the workplace suggests that workplace interventions can increase the duration of breastfeeding and prevent early introduction of breastmilk substitutes . The shoWorkplace accommodations will not be sufficient to enable women to breastfeed if the workplace culture is hostile toward breastfeeding. Research highlights that support for breastfeeding mothers in the workplace is mediated by the experience, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of co-workers and managers. This includes regarding a perception or not of unfairness for taking breastfeeding breaks and stigmatization of breastfeeding as unprofessional and breastmilk as an unclean body fluid , 210. ReAddressing the disproportionate unpaid care work undertaken by women has important implications for policies targeting the pay gap between men and women . There ivia measures such as the previously described economic accounting for care work in GDP are needed for the cost of this infant care to be distributed between women, men and society as a whole. The inclusion of care work in national economic measurements would likely increase government, business and societal support for this work and result in new and innovative ways of addressing gender inequality. Consideration of the value of breastfeeding as food work is often overlooked  but recd [e.g., , 218. Mod [e.g., . Countrid [e.g.,  and thisd [e.g., .‘requires that women’s lived experiences are taken into account, especially those relating to their unpaid care responsibilities’ (Finally, programs to encourage fathers to support breastfeeding including by engaging in care work that is not sexed in nature, such as housework, cooking, and shopping, have been found to increase exclusive breastfeeding rates , 221 andilities’ . Failureilities’ . ActionsThe Three Rs call for women’s unpaid care work to be recognized, reduced, and redistributed. However, the care work of breastfeeding is a special case. Its sexed nature and the breastfeeding rights held by women and children mean that this care work should be recognized but must be excluded from reduction and redistribution efforts. Rather, women’s work in caring for and breastfeeding their infants and young children should be supported and action taken to avoid undermining of women’s breastfeeding ability. Greater recognition of breastfeeding as productive work in the reproductive continuum is needed, and the incorporation of this concept into economic measurement, policy development and budgeting. Reducing the amount of direct care mothers provide to their infants and young breastfeeding children should not be a goal but reducing time and energy spent in other caregiving responsibilities should be. Doing this will contribute to women’s nutrition, health, and well-being and that of their children, while also contributing to the societies in which mothers, fathers and children live. Breastfeeding-friendly infrastructure–such as paid maternity leave, workplace breastfeeding accommodations, suitable childcare, and adequate informal support–are not only protecting the health and rights of women and children. Indeed, they also contribute significantly to societies by facilitating breastfeeding practices that help to bring healthy citizens into being. Taking a collective social approach means the economic costs of providing infant and young childcare would not fall so heavily on individual women. The specifics of how this is done will of course need to take into account country context however, in short, rather than redistributing breastfeeding and infant care, we should redistribute the cost of that caregiving. We should focus on supporting care work that is necessarily sexed, and distributing the remaining non-sexed care more equally between men and women, broader society and the state to the benefit of women, children and society as a whole.KG and RM conceived of the paper. KG wrote the first draft of the manuscript. KG, JS, TG, VU, PE, LC, CP-K, DC, AS, MH, and RM discussed and provided original content for the paper. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.


The essential proposal of this text is that psychedelic-induced metaphysical experiences should be integrated and evaluated with recourse to metaphysics. It will be argued that there is a potential extra benefit to patients in psychedelic-assisted therapy if they are provided with an optional, additional, and intelligible schema and discussion of metaphysical options at the integrative phase of the therapy. This schema (the “Metaphysics Matrix”) and a new Metaphysics Matrix Questionnaire (“MMQ”) stemming therefrom will be presented, the latter of which can also be used as an alternative or additional tool for quantitative measurement of psychedelic experience in trials. Metaphysics is not mysticism, despite some overlap; and certainly not all psychedelic experience is metaphysical or mystical—all three terms will be defined and contrasted. Thereafter psychedelic therapy will be presented and analysed in order to reveal the missing place for metaphysics. Metaphysics, with epistemology (theory of knowledge) and axiology (ethics and aesthetics), is a defining branch of Philosophy. Metaphysics, in contrast to mysticism, is considered to be based on argument rather than pure revelation. Thus, in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy one sees here the potential bridge between reason-based philosophy and practical therapy—or, more broadly, with psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy there is the potential and mutually beneficial fusion of philosophy with practical science. Metaphysics should be used to integrate and understand psychedelic-induced metaphysical experiences. That this proposition is near tautologically obvious yet not implemented in practice is the deficiency which this text seeks to remedy. Metaphysics is taken to be one of three core pillars of the discipline of Philosophy.experiences of established metaphysical systems  both. Russell , p. 1, iDeleuze, , p. 129.integrative phase where the psychedelic-induced experience is reflected upon as regards its significance—include as an optional and additional element an intelligible metaphysical discourse based upon the Metaphysics Matrix  metaphysical positions referred to throughout. As we shall see, mystical experience—including “transpersonal experience”  Aristotle's writings on physics . But, to step back, metaphysics, or “First Philosophy,” is, Aristotle writes, a “science whose remit is being qua being” . In other words, metaphysics' concern is the fundamental nature of existence itself. The Greek word for being, existence, is óntos, from which we get the term, “ontology,” which is at times used synonymously for metaphysics and at other times used as a subset of metaphysics. Yet if the latter, it is still the case that at “the heart of metaphysics is ontology”  texts , the “canonical seven philosophers” , and there is experiential metaphysics  second sense in which metaphysics can be bifurcated, by which the previous bifurcation becomes the first branch of this more general one. There is what might be named sics see . Intelle“… And I have feltA presence that disturbs me with the joyOf elevated thoughts; a sense sublimeOf something far more deeply interfused,Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,And the round ocean and the living air,And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:A motion and a spirit, that impelsAll thinking things, all objects of all thought,And rolls through all things. Therefore am I stillA lover of the meadows and the woods and mountains. ….” is. Is it matter ? Is it mind ? Is it both matter and mind ? Is it something that incorporates matter and mind ? Is it something that transcends matter and mind ? Are there further options? All known options have numerous arguments in their favour, and innumerable criticisms. There is no default, standard option. Even Physicalism is, ironically, a metaphysical position and should not be adopted without due caution. One cannot avoid metaphysics. As mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said, “If you don't go into metaphysics, you assume an uncritical metaphysics” , which despite its age is still considered by some leading metaphysicians as the most feasible variety. Heil  takes its own row in order to traverse varieties physicalist, idealist, dualist, and neutral monist. As Skrbina , p. 2 arty. Heil , p. 130,Consequently, it is inadequate to simply differentiate Panpsychism in opposition to Physicalism, Dualism, etc. In a recent empirical study reported in a paper named “Psychedelics alter metaphysical beliefs” by Timmermann et al. , it was Metaphysics (Book Lambda) wherein he argued for a (non-religious) god . Whitehead  of this paper to explicate the various multicultural, metaphysical positions outlined in the Matrix and its MMQ. This will be the ambition of a separate forthcoming handbook for use by practitioners, patients, and various other psychonauts. Here, it is sufficient to describe what metaphysics is, how it relates to psychedelic experience, and how it differs from, and has similarities with, mystical experience. The notion of “mystical experience” has dominated psychedelic surveys and trials hitherto, so let us look at it.philosophia perennis) was coined and developed by Roman Catholic (Augustinian) theologian and Renaissance (neo-) Platonist Agostino Steuco in 1540 , we get mys-tes, meaning an “initiate” into secret rites (mys-tes) comes from the philosopher Heraclitus (fl. c. 500BC) . Plato also speaks of the Mysteries, wanting himself to be counted a mystic  but rather conveyed an experience (pathein ti)” (via Plato and Philo) and experiential. In the Enneads, Plotinus writes that:From the Greek root et rites , a “mystet rites . The firein ti)” , reflectein ti)” , p. 305.“The man who obtains the vision becomes, as it were, another being. He ceases to be himself, retains nothing of himself. Absorbed in the beyond he is one with it, like a center coincident with another center. While the centers coincide, they are one. They become two only when they separate. It is in this sense that we can speak of The One as something separate.Ennead VI, 9 [9], §§10–11: O'Brien, This, doubtless, is what is back of the injunction of the mystery religions which prohibit revelation to the uninitiated. The divine is not expressible, so the initiate is forbidden to speak of it to anyone who has not been fortunate enough to have beheld it himself. The vision, in any case, did not imply duality; the man who saw was identical with what he saw. Hence he did not ‘see' it but rather was ‘oned' with it.” —Leuba (Weltgeist) and its offshoot, Absolute Idealism (“the Absolute”) . There is then an overlap between mystical and metaphysical experience: “Union” (of Self and Greater) can be intellectualised through a number of metaphysical systems such as Transcendent Realism and Idealism. Wider still, if mystical experience is essentially and concisely defined as believed “direct experience of ultimate reality” —Leuba , p. 1 deThe Varieties of Religious Experience, catalysed the academic interest into mystical states Unitive The Unreality of TimeBeyond Good and EvilOtto Zaehner , p. 93ffTranscendence of Space (thus Unity)Transcendence of Time (thus Unity)Contraction into The One (Being not Becoming)– Peaceful, Joyful– Beyond Good and EvilThe Love of God (Beyond The One)A. Zaehner also distinguished Nature Mysticism, Soul Mysticism, and Theistic Mysticism.via Pahnke, Richards, Hood, et al.—were those that informed the most common mystical experience questionnaires, viz. the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) Salvia divinorum from the categorisation of psychedelics.Humphry Osmond coined and defined “psychedelic” as “mind-manifesting” , not “brain-manifesting,” and thus the term “psychedelic” should be determined by drug-induced (“agents”) via the invocation of beings—as documented by Yanomami shaman, Davi Kopenawa ; or the Watts Connectedness Scale . For instance, Roseman et al. additional part of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. It should also be optional, to offer agency to the patient, and because a patient may not have undergone a psychedelic-induced metaphysical experience. Another point of metaphysical significance is that if it is the phenomenology rather than the physiology that is primarily therapeutically effective here , and we see such a view expressed throughout the psychedelic literature. The aforementioned Timmermann et al.  study in“This insight into the hidden nature of things, which in itself swept away time and distance and left me with a new understanding the authenticity of which I could not doubt, was indescribably thrilling: this was really to know, really to feel, and to transcend the mean limitations of our ordinary ways of perceiving …. I realized that the whole universe is made-up of things which have their own natures, relationships, significances, and that in some universal scale each thing has its proper place and even its proper degree of awareness, whether we call it animate or inanimate.” , the reports are manifold. Reports of psychedelic-induced past lives—metempsychosis Grof, —imply a ri. Inge , p. 404,via nitrous oxide for Humphry Davy. William James also arrived at Idealism via nitrous oxide, Idealism of the Hegelian variety. In the extensive endnote to his 1882 paper, “On Some Hegelisms,” he writes:With regard to Idealism, we have seen its evocation intense metaphysical illumination. … [Its] first result was to make peal through me with unutterable power the conviction that Hegelism was true after all, and that the deepest convictions of my intellect hitherto were wrong. … [U]nbroken continuity is of the essence of being; and … we are literally in the midst of an infinite, to perceive the existence of which is the utmost we can attain.” ; of lost memories ; of spacelessness or of a space of other than three dimensions; of the platitudinous “ego-loss” ; of nature-connectedness ; of other realms ; to supreme aesthetic experiences; to the seeming diffusion and proliferation of the mind; to the amplification of the feelings and emotions; to the divine . All such experiences, and others, can be discussed using the discourse of metaphysics.If certain such metaphysical experiences promote therapeutic benefits it would behove us to endeavour to accentuate through exploration these experiences in the integrative phase of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy .Gorman et al.  have deffacilitate the already-established psychoanalytic therapy Bathje et al. go on to identify ten models of integration , “based on Indigenous worldviews and practices, Transpersonal Psychology, Jungian Psychology, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Psychodynamic Psychology, Somatic Psychology, Nature Relatedness, Biopsychosocialspiritual Models, and Harm Reduction” . We have not the scope to explore each model here, but note that none of them involve recourse to metaphysics, through which mystical experience can attain meaning.element of a broader integrative phase will be an inadequate form of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. We have seen Hofmann , it seems that an integrative approach that omits metaphysics as one  Hofmann , p. 206  Hofmann , p. 380 “[T]hese models may not provide a broad enough framework for practitioners or journeyers [participants] to respond to this full range of psychedelic experiences. … We believe integration will be most complete when expanding to address the full range of experiences people have with psychedelic substances. … In attempting to work holistically, those assisting journeyers with integration will need the humility to recognise the limitations of their training and knowledge, and limitations of their cultural conditioning and worldview. A skilled range of collaborators and referral sources are likely to be valuable in facilitating the integration process.” . Unity in terms of nature-connectedness or -exaltation can be framed within the panpsychological metaphysics of thinkers such as Alfred North Whitehead  therapeutic efficacy are metaphysical experiences.  the experience can be more comprehensively framed, (ii) there will be less reason to dismiss the experience as delusional once a participant realises that each metaphysical position has an established legacy of discourse, (iii) relatedly, that the worldview hitherto adopted by the participant is but one metaphysical position amongst others, and (iv) that Metaphysics Integration amplifies the significance of the psychedelic experience that is regarded (point 1) as having the most therapeutic efficacy.It is This is the proposal and the conjecture. There are many issues and questions that stem therefrom, as well as a number of potential projects and studies. One of the immediate issues is practical: how might Metaphysics Integration be implemented? This is an issue for another paper that considers how the complexity of metaphysics could be made intelligible to participants and practitioners through resources such as a handbook or practitioner training. The Metaphysics Matrix and its accompanying MMQ, provided here, can be used as the basis of such resources—and they show the possibility of simplification for intelligibility and practical use. Furthermore, we have seen throughout this text how certain psychedelic experiences can be discussed and made meaningful in terms of metaphysical positions. In practice this would need to be further bridged by the therapist to the participant's life, concerns, values, aims, and outlook. Since the 1950s there have been many varieties of psychedelic therapy, and there is no reason why Metaphysics Integration should not be an augmentation of such therapies currently in development. In fact, as I have sought to show, Metaphysics Integration may offer an advance in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy—because integrating metaphysical experience requires recourse to metaphysics.The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.