Sure. Christina Cogdell’s review doi:10.1162/desi.2009.25.3.92 of that celebratory scientism-roadshow (a critique of its sloppy curation, not the accompanying catalogue texts) frames the problem rather nicely, as well as Massimo Negrotti’s thoughtful concerns doi:10.1162/desi.2008.24.4.26 regarding bold claims being made by just too many algorithmic can-do-ists purporting to be designing like nature - which in fact they aren’t. Back to that MGX contraption: no, osseous tissue does not mineralise that way; no, it is not the best morphologic exemplar to model flexibility whilst minimising material usage - it’s just a contemporary design emission, thinly coated with what Aldersey-Williams dubbed “the gloss of scientific validity”.