In terms of advancing architectural design, and it does, this sort of innovation in construction design enhances the designers vocabulary – ie it is like learning to use a stick to do dots on a canvas (as indigenous artists do) rather than using a brushwork and brushwork to paint.

I think the research is still in the blue-sky category but bio-engineering is fast-developing field. Most of the work is medical for the present but there is no reason why this should remain so. It only needs one commercially successful innovation to open a vast new field of activity in construction design.
The distinction between patents and copyrights is interesting. I guess Paxton would have, had he lived under our laws, both a patent on the glazing system and copyright in the design.

There is a distinction between what skills are necessary in research and what skills are necessary for practice. Do the architects think Rachel has all the skills necessary for practice? Perhaps she could join the RIBA as an affiliate or co-professional?
[ http://www.architecture.com/JoinTheRIBA/Individuals/RIBAMembershipLifecycle.aspx ]

Perhaps after working in practice for a time it may be possible to apply to be registered under a different category based on practice experience (with work examples) rather than undergraduate study?

Rachel has many architects to work with. Perhaps distraction would be a better word than nuisance. What I mean is that the time spent on an architectural curriculum would not help with her research. It reminds me of James Watt. When he was working on the steam engine he wanted to join a guild of craftsmen. It was agreed that he had all the necessary craft skills but they would not have him because he had not served time as an apprentice. I think this attitude doomed the guild system. They became closed shops instead of centres of innovation and excellence – though of course they always had been cartels to a significant degree. I keep hoping that landscape architects will avoid the problem because so many of the entrants are post-graduate and bring in skills from other professions.

Has she spoken to Future Systems about her ideas? They are the most likely practice-based architects to be interested in promoting, advancing and commercialising the potential of bio-materials in a design context. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Systems ].

If she is interested in also practising as an architect, their firm may be the most appropriate pathway.

Rachel works in the School of Architecture, Design and Construction at Greenwich and would definitely like to see ideas used in building design. The reason for my comparison with Paxton is that he began with a design detail (for ridge-and-furrow glazing) and ‘grew’ this detail into the design for the Crystal Palace. If the technology worked out, I think Rachel could do the same thing with bio-materials – except that it would be a nuisance for her to become a registered architect in the UK. But if the technology is going to transform the discipline of architecture then I think she ought to be welcomed with open arms.

“…Armstrong hopes to create sustainable, metabolic materials. Although this technology will take years to create and perfect, hopefully these materials will be used to save dying cities.

Venice, Italy is built upon wooden piles that have eroded over many years. As the beautiful city continues to sink, Armstrong hopes that the protocell technology will be able to reclaim the city by growing a limestone reef around the piles. These cells would be used for reinforcement purposes instead of just creating a reef in the canals.

Not only does this technology seem plausible, it would be a great innovation for architecture. Now more than ever we stress the idea of being as eco-friendly and “green” as possible; what better way to connect with nature than with this technology? It is our duty to try to salvage historical cities, and metabolic materials may very well be the answer to our problems. Furthermore, as our world becomes more technologically and scientifically advanced, it should seem reasonable to update some of our older practices as well.”

Paxton seems to have been more interested in spacial design and its application to greenhouses, which inspired and transformed the discipline of architecture.

There is no harm in requiring two years of supervision by a registered architect in order to join a voluntary professional institute. But I think it would be too much to require this before a building can be signed off and approved for construction. A stamp of architect’s approval is not required in the UK but is necessary in France, Spain and other European countries – which would have prevented construction of a Crystal Palace designed by a Joseph Paxton – who was ‘only’ a gardener with no academic or other qualifications. Rachel Armstrong http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_armstrong_architecture_that_repairs_itself.html could possibly be another Paxton and it would be a pity to stop her designing a building because she lacked a certain education.