Close
Articles

Super Strength Unlocked: The Rise of Exoskeleton Technology

December 16, 2024

Superheroes have become such an essential part of pop culture, captivating us with powers far beyond what we know as humanly possible. You likely have watched a superhero movie, read a comic book, or even seen superheroes in your front yard when handing candy out for Halloween. As a kid, I marveled at the idea of having my own powers. As a teenager, I watched Marvel movies all the time because it was so interesting to see made-up powers and the creativity behind them. Now, as a STEM college student, I am learning more about the amazing creations science and technology can bring to life. Now, I wonder: could these powers exist one day, and if so, how close are we to giving humans these abilities? This series will explore how close we are to achieving “superpowers” through advancements in STEM—from super strength to telekinesis and even invisibility. Each post will dive into science and technology bringing us closer to making these powers a reality.

Super Strength

Heroes like the Hulk, Superman, Wonder Woman, and many others have been portrayed as having super strength. One that I find particularly interesting is Iron Man— a regular human who, through science and technology, built a suit that granted him super strength and other powers. The idea of using science to create such technology is no longer just fiction; in fact, it’s becoming a real possibility to give humans abilities beyond natural limits. This is happening today through the development of exoskeletons.

Exoskeleton

Engineers have been working hard to create exoskeletons that give their wearers an enhanced level of strength. It is stated that “Combining the principles of hydraulic pressure and computer simulation, these suits allow the wearer to complete feats of strength previously confined to comic books and the silver screen” (Osborne & Osborne, 2017). Exoskeletons do not have a mind of their own and are not controlled remotely, they are a tool to aid in human tasks. The exoskeleton responds to its “human operator” and their movements. One such exoskeleton, the HAL-5, assists users by reducing fatigue, supporting static weight, and reinforcing the human frame (Osborne & Osborne, 2017). Meanwhile, Sarcos Robotics has developed the Sarcos Guardian XO, a full-body robotic exoskeleton that enables users to lift up to 200 pounds with ease (Ackerman, 2022).

Real-World Applications

Around the world, there are a vast number of exoskeletons being developed, all for different purposes and demographics. Some exoskeletons are built to help elderly individuals with tasks that require strength, while others assist soldiers in the field with activities like crawling, running, and carrying heavy objects. This technology not only boosts productivity but also enhances worker safety when performing labor-intensive tasks. Sarcos Robotics claims that a single worker with the Guardian XO can handle the workload of 4-10 people. According to OSHA regulations, the recommended one-person load is 51 pounds, and that number is reduced if the object must be lifted repeatedly, held for extended periods, or moved over a distance. However, with the Guardian XO, a worker can lift four times that weight, continuously, at speeds of up to 3 mph (Ackerman, 2022).

Challenges

One of the biggest obstacles to advancing and commercializing exoskeletons is the high power demand. Operating these suits requires a significant amount of energy due to the high-pressure requirements. The HAL-5, for example, is battery-powered but only lasts around 2.5 hours on a full charge (Osborne & Osborne, 2017). Finding a more efficient or portable power source could make exoskeleton technology more practical and widely accessible.

Conclusion

It is fascinating to see how much science has advanced the ability to have “superpowers”. Thinking about where science and technology could go from here is even more interesting. There is still a long way to go in the quest to give humans super strength, but it can no longer be said that it is impossible to do so.

 

 

 

References

Ackerman, E. (2022, August 18). Sarcos demonstrates powered exosuit that gives workers super strength. IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/sarcos-guardian-xo-powered-exoskeleton

Osborne, M., & Osborne, M. (2017, November 13). Engineering Super Strength: Combining man and Machine – USC Viterbi School of Engineering. USC Viterbi School of Engineering – USC Viterbi School of Engineering. https://illumin.usc.edu/engineering-super-strength-combining-man-and-machine/

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Two simple illustrated chicks. The right one is round, and the left one is spiky.
Articles
Bouba? Kiki? Baby Chicks Associate Sounds With Shapes
Articles
Are You Smiling Under Your Face Mask?
Articles, today i learned (til)
Alex or Alexa: Gender Norms in Technology
Articles, Field Notes, Story Time
HackMITea: A Hackathon From the Eyes of a Physics Major

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.