Biological Anthropology in 2015: Open Access, Biocultural Interactions, and Social Change

Replica of Bionic Nepenthes Peristome-like and Anti-Fouling Structures for Self-Driving Water and Raman-Enhancing Detection

The flexible, anti-fouling, and bionic surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) biochip, which has a Nepenthes peristome-like structure, was fabricated by photolithography, replicated technology, and thermal evaporation. The pattern of the bionic Nepenthes peristome-like structure was fabricated by two layers of photolithography with SU-8 photoresist. The bionic structure was then replicated by polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and grafting the zwitterion polymers (2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine, MPC) by atmospheric plasma polymerization (PDMS-PMPC). The phospholipid monomer of MPC immobilization plays an important role; it can not only improve hydrophilicity, anti-fouling and anti-bacterial properties, and biocompatibility, but it also allows for self-driving and unidirectional water delivery. Ag nanofilms (5 nm) were deposited on a PDMS (PDMS-Ag) substrate by thermal evaporation for SERS detection. Characterizations of the bionic SERS chips were measured by a scanning electron microscope (SEM), optical microscope (OM), X-ray photoelectron spectrometer (XPS), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and contact angle (CA) testing. The results show that the superior anti-fouling capability of proteins and bacteria (E. coli) was found on the PDMS-PMPC substrate. Furthermore, the one-way liquid transfer capability of the bionic SERS chip was successfully demonstrated, which provides for the ability to separate samples during the flow channel, and which was detected by Raman spectroscopy. The SERS intensity (adenine, 10⁻⁴ M) of PDMS-Ag with a bionic structure is ~4 times higher than PDMS-Ag without a bionic structure, due to the multi-reflection of the 3D bionic structure. The high-sensitivity bionic SERS substrate, with its self-driving water capability, has potential for biomolecule separation and detection.

Ecocultural or Biocultural? Towards Appropriate Terminologies in Biocultural Diversity

Biocultural diversity has made notable contributions that have furthered our understanding of the human culture-nature interrelationship. However, the usage of the term 'biocultural' is not unique to biocultural diversity. It was first used in biocultural studies within anthropology decades ahead of biocultural diversity. The existing literature on biocultural diversity does not acknowledge the prior existence of biocultural studies, or provide a clear demarcation between usages of the two terms. In this article, I discuss the varying contexts in usage of the term 'biocultural' between biocultural diversity and biocultural anthropology. While biocultural diversity deals with the linkages between biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity, biocultural studies in anthropology deal with the deterministic influence of physical and social environment on human biology and wellbeing. In biocultural studies, 'biocultural' refers to the integration of methodically collated cultural data with biological and environmental data. 'Bio' in biocultural anthropology therefore denotes biology, unlike biocultural diversity where it refers to biodiversity. Both biocultural studies and biocultural diversity apply 'biocultural' as descriptor to generate overlapping terminologies such as 'biocultural approach'. Such a confusing scenario is not in the interest of biocultural diversity, as it would impede theoretical advancements. I propose that advocates of biocultural diversity explore its harmonies with ecoculturalism and the possibilities of suitably adapting the term 'ecoculture' in lieu of 'bioculture'. Using 'ecocultural' instead of 'biocultural' as a descriptor to coin terminologies could solve confusions arising from the expanding usage of the term 'bioculture'.

3D Printing: Applications in evolution and ecology

In the commercial and medical sectors, 3D printing is delivering on its promise to enable a revolution. However, in the fields of Ecology and Evolution we are only on the brink of embracing the advantages that 3D printing can offer. Here we discuss examples where the process has enabled researchers to develop new techniques, work with novel species, and to enhance the impact of outreach activities. Our aim is to showcase the potential that 3D printing offers in terms of improved experimental techniques, greater flexibility, reduced costs and promoting open science, while also discussing its limitations. By taking a general overview of studies using the technique from fields across the broad range of Ecology and Evolution, we show the flexibility of 3D printing technology and aim to inspire the next generation of discoveries.