Gizmodo57%

Researchers Built a Scuba Suit for Cyborg Cockroaches 8%

By Bruce Gil31%

7/4/2026, 6:00:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Hasty Generalization, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 15.2% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 385 faulty-reasoning hits from 506 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.6% and a BS Rank of 8% (20,186 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.20% of the article peer group.

Scientists in Singapore and Japan have developed a tiny 3D-printed scuba suit for cyborg cockroaches, allowing them to survive and move underwater and other low-oxygen environments for up to three hours. 
The suit can transform a regular cockroach, and potentially other insects, into “an amphibious cyborg robot capable of operation across land and water,” according to a new research paper published this week in Nature Communications. 
The study was conducted by scientists at Nanyang Technological University and Waseda University. 
So, why do researchers want half-robot cockroaches to breathe underwater anyway? 
Apparently, they hope to one day be able to use cyborg cockroaches in search and rescue missions, pipeline inspection, and other complex tasks. 
NTU Professor Hirotaka Sato, who led the study, has been working on cyborg insects for more than a decade. 
These hybrid robots combine living insects with electrodes that allow humans to remotely control their movements. 
Sato and his co-authors argue that this setup can make them more useful than traditional robots in some situations. 
Unlike conventional robots, cyborg insects consume less energy because they use their own muscles to move. 
They are also small enough to move through confined and cluttered spaces that larger robots may not be able to reach. 
These cyborgs have already been used in actual search-and-rescue operations, including Operation Lionheart after the 7.7-magnitude earthquake in Myanmar in March, according to NTU. 
There is one obvious drawback, though. 
These tiny cyborgs still have biological limits. 
They need oxygen, which makes them much less useful underwater. 
“This is important because real disaster sites can be challenging after heavy rain or flooding, blocking access routes in the rubble, drains and narrow gaps,” Sato said in a news release on the study. 
“By expanding the operating parameters of our cyborg insects to include underwater travel, we believe that they can enhance search and rescue efforts.” 
The new scuba suit is meant to solve that problem. 
How the suit works 
Cockroaches breathe through small holes on their bodies known as spiracles. 
To protect those spiracles from water, the researchers made a flexible 3D-printed shell that wraps around the insect’s body. 
Four small tubes then attach to the cockroach’s spiracles and deliver oxygen directly to them. 
Attached to the shell is an oxygen-generation tank that contains a small sponge soaked in manganese dioxide. 
To activate the system, the team injected diluted hydrogen peroxide into the tank, then sealed it with ultraviolet adhesive to prevent leaks. 
The chemical reaction inside the tank slowly releases oxygen, which is then delivered through silicone tubes into the cockroach’s spiracles. 
According to the study, the suit was tested on Madagascar hissing cockroaches in plastic tubes that simulated different environments. 
Cyborg cockroaches equipped with the suit were able to move around underwater for two to three hours. 
Cockroaches in the control group suffocated within two minutes. 
The team said this suit could potentially be adapted for other robot bugs like locusts and beetles, as these insects have similar body structures and respiratory systems. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.0%Bruce Gil: 2.3%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 1.8%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Bruce Gil: 2.6%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic4.7%This article: 8.5%Bruce Gil: 0.9%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Bruce Gil: 1.3%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias3.4%This article: 2.2%Bruce Gil: 6.0%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 1.2%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.2%Bruce Gil: 3.3%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias15.2%This article: 2.0%Bruce Gil: 0.3%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias2.0%This article: 1.2%Bruce Gil: 5.6%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias1.2%This article: 3.8%Bruce Gil: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.1%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 2.0%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.9%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.1%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.7%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.7%Bruce Gil: 4.4%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority10.7%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.5%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.9%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.1%Bruce Gil: 5.2%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization9.1%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 3.4%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.7%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 1.2%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.2%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.8%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.7%Bruce Gil: 2.1%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote6.7%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 1.9%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.7%Bruce Gil: 2.1%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice6.7%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.5%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.2%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruce Gil: 5.0%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

506 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers24%attributed speech387writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageHirotaka Sato • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageHirotaka Sato • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNanyang Technological University • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageHirotaka Sato • 34 words • 100.0% coverageHirotaka Sato • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Hirotaka Sato

100%flagged-word coverage
95 attributed words80% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote+35.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hirotaka Sato: 35.8%35.8%Biased Writer Voice+35.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hirotaka Sato: 35.8%35.8%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.