Edith Widder combines her expertise in research and technological innovation with a commitment to stopping and reversing the degradation of our marine environment. Some 80 to 90 percent of undersea creatures make light — and we know very little about how or why. Bioluminescence expert Edith Widder explores this glowing, sparkling, luminous world, sharing glorious images and insight into the unseen depths of the ocean.
Specialist in bioluminescence, Edith Widder helps to design and invent submersible machines and instruments that allow her to study and discover bioluminescence life forms and organisms.
In her study, Edith discusses the importance of bioluminescent life forms and how the science behind their emission of light can help improve systems here on earth, for e.g. she talks about how we can alter a trees DNA to make it be able to emit light.
Throughout my research on bioluminescent organisms
and objects, I found that this was an area of science
that could be greatly beneficial to creating a sustainable
future. Not only are the recent discoveries extraordinary
they are quite impressive and aesthetically beautiful. Just the thought of having glowing trees on our streets at night reminds me of the movie avatar – simply stunning. However, there are many people that could benefit from growing bioluminescent plants, especially those whose homes are not wired up to the grid.
There seem to be no flaws to the creation of a bioluminescent plant: they light pollution but third world countries that are not able to produce power for light, cannot break, and if you need more light, you simply grow more of them. The team researching bioluminescent properties calculated that in order for a bioluminescent tree to replace streetlight, it would have to divert only 0.02% of the energy absorbed for photosynthesis, into light production. That’s near zero and almost 100% fully sustainable. Other alternatives to producing bioluminescent light were bio lights, which absorb methane and compost material. Although these are a lovely alternative for a modern take on the matter, they still provide a lot more maintenance and cost money to manufacture.
So is there anything wrong with? After all the research I’ve put into it I can’t pinpoint any major problems or errors. Probably the most prominent issue with the research is that it costs money to manufacture and conduct these kinds of tests. However, with minimal funding scientists are able to manipulate the cells to incorporate into plant life and other living organisms such as mice for example.
Realistically I believe this sort of microbiology will be seen in the near future, and not only for cities but third world countries who may not be able to produce power for lights.
In conclusion design cases 1 and 3 demonstrated and effective solution to an alternative light source. With the right amount of funding this new source of microbiology could be implemented effectively within the next 10 years and the maximum.